Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.

the first thing you noticed is her great outfit and the first thing I noticed is she's covering her wedding ring this is why you are anxious and I am Alone

Today in the United States and the developed world, women are better off than ever before. But the blunt truth is that men still run the world...

It is time for us to face the fact that our revolution has stalled. A truly equal world would be one where women ran half of our countries and companies and men ran half of our homes. The laws of economics and many studies of diversity tell us that if we tapped the entire pool of human resources and talent, our performance would improve.

I.

Sheryl Sandberg is the future ex-COO of Facebook, and while that sounds like enough of a resume to speak on women in the workplace, note that her advice on how to get ahead appears in Time Magazine. Oh, you thought that Sandberg's book is news worthy in itself, how could you not do a story on this magnificence? No, this is a setup, the Time Magazine demo is never going to be COO of anything, as evidenced by the fact that they read Time Magazine. Much more importantly, they are not raising daughters who are going to be COO of anything. So why is this here?

The first level breakdown is that this is what Time readers want, they want a warm glow and to be reassured that the reason they're stuck living in Central Time is sexism. This demo likes to see a smart, pretty woman succeed in a man's world, as long as "pretty" isn't too pretty but "wearing a great outfit" and that man's world isn't overly manly, like IBM or General Dynamics, yawn, but an aspirational, Aeron chair "creative" place that doesn't involve calculus or yelling, somewhere they suspect they could have worked had it not been for sexism and biological clocks. We all know Pinterest is for idiots. Hence Facebook.

II.

If you are still suspicious that Sandberg's appearance in Time has nothing to do with her book or with women becoming COOs but is about something else, look through the newsstand for the other magazine in which Sandberg is prominently featured: Cosmo.

the first thing you noticed is her great outfit and the first thing I noticed is she's showing her wedding ring

This is the mag she felt compelled to guest edit, an issue that also has "The Money, The Man, The Baby: Get What You Want," by future Labor Secretary Kim Kardashian. No one reads Cosmo to become a COO, no one who reads Cosmo could become a COO, because-- and I'm just guessing-- they think the the secret formula for success is Dream Job + The Right Partner + Great Wardrobe = Yes I Can! Well, you
can't, not with those priorities. Each of those may be desirable, but when placed together
as an equation it is revealed to be nothing but outward branding, and
the consequence is that even if you get all three you will still
be unsatisfied.

For the past two weeks Sandberg was anywhere nothing useful is happening, and I'm going to include Facebook in that. Some cry-baby over at Jezebel was thrilled that Sandberg was featured all week on Access Hollywood, holy Christ, she thought this was a good thing. "Feminism is back in the mainstream in a big way," she wrote, I assume in between quaaludes, "the women's movement is actually moving." How can you work in media and not understand media? The fact that feminism is in the mainstream means that it doesn't exist, it is no longer real, in the same way that when you hear "gun control debate" it's a lie and "fiscal cliff" is an easy to market, safe distraction from the structural problems that can never be named, here's one: for any heterogeneous population, the expansion of a "welfare class" is logically inseparable from the entrenchment of an aristocracy, can't have one without the other once you get bigger than 20M, ask Bismarck. "Does he write for Time?" No. But keep this in mind every time you hear how great it is Bill Gates is curing malaria after leaving us all with Windows.

You might ask, well, how do we get women who read Cosmo and Jezebel
to aspire to something greater? Your question is illogical. It's not because Cosmo and Jezebel attract dumb women, no, not exactly, it's that they teach their readers to
want certain things over other things. They teach them how to want. What resists them? Nothing. Then who can unbrainwash them? No one. The person that should have was their mother, and they read Time.

III.

But other than getting them to buy magazines, why bother with making women feel good about themselves? Are they going to riot because men won't let them be COOs? Placating the TV demographic
whose only act of political violence was to Like the Kony video hardly seems urgently necessary.

It's not to make them feel good, and it certainly isn't to inspire them to become COOs. It is what we drunks call "unconscious" and Sandberg herself is not aware of it. Don't equate what Sandberg wants with what the system wants to use her for. If they did not overlap, you would never know the name Sheryl Sandberg; or, said the other, more scary way, the only reason you know the name of Sheryl Sandberg is because it represents a defense against change. Off topic, not really, a short joke by comic Greg Giraldo: "It's so great that Americans will still vote for a white guy even if he's a little black." Defense against change.

One of Sandberg's three Time-approved points is that women "leave before they leave," which means that instead of planning early to advance in their career, they plan early to leave their career. Here's a very revealing excerpt, read it closely:

But women rarely make one big decision to leave the workforce. Instead, they make a lot of small decisions along the way. A law associate might decide not to shoot for partner because someday she hopes to have a family. A sales rep might take a smaller territory or not apply for a management role...

"So true!" Slow down. The trick is most employable women are at best at the "sales rep" level, not the lawyer level, but because of the juxtaposition you never think: why the hell would a sales rep want to be a manager? "Oh, because it's a lot more work." Is it a lot more money? "Well, no, it's a little more money." So you want me to work a lot more now for the possibility of eventually getting a job that pays only a little more money? "Yes, stupid, it's called a promotion." It sounds like a scam. "No, it's a stepping stone to Nominal Vice President In Charge of Situations And Scenarios." Does that pay more? "What are you, a communist? 401k matches 50% of the first 6%." In other words 3%, ok, am I on a prank show? "Free GPS tracker in your phone and laptop." Thank you Yaz, my forties are going to be great.

Sandberg's book is heralded as "the next great feminist manifesto", by this logic the first one was TV Guide. Just because there's a woman near it, doesn't mean it's about women. The feminism debate, labeled equivalently as "gender discrimination" or "women sabotage themselves", is not about women, it is about LABOR COSTS, making working for something other than money admirable. If some women rise to COO that's unintended consequences, what the system really wants is people, especially the still not maxed out women, to want to work harder for it, to be a producer/consumer for it, by making noble and desirable the long hours, "a seat at the table"-- the kind of things that give away the majority of your high heeled, productive life in exchange for the trappings of power. This is one reason why while people think it's cool if Zuckerberg wears a hoodie, women's work attire is tightly controlled by women-- being able to dress up for work is signaled to you as part of the appeal of work, a perk, which is why every picture of Sandberg is in a "great outfit." It doesn't matter that Sandberg does or doesn't dress this way ordinarily, it only matters how her image can be repackaged to convey the correct message to you. Whatever Sandberg wants to say, whatever she thinks she means, is totally irrelevant to this process. The ability to run Facebook is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

If you doubt this, observe that of all the advice Sandberg via Time gives to women, the single piece (in)conspicuously absent from the Time article is the most important: ask for more money. Duh. Ask for less hours. Ask for something real, that can affect your life, instead of the cosmetic, "trappings of power" gimmicks like titles or prestige-- the very things that would appeal most to a narcissistic culture obsessed with broadcasting identity, requiring not just external but visible to others validations of their worth. NB: it's not that Sandberg herself didn't say ask for more money-- she did, e.g. in her book and in the British "Americans are money hungry pigs" Guardian. But that advice cannot appear in Time. What the Time article made a big deal about was that she fought for pregnancy parking spots, that's the progress, you go girl, Sandberg is also fighting for the right to cry at work, Jezebel was right, feminism is moving.

Employers take note, Americans, especially American women, can be easily convinced to forgo money if it's not enough money to be flaunted or if something else can be.

The same should apply to men, the difference is working men have an Act I backstory: two generations ago and back the whole game for men was the money, the lifestyle, the house/wife/car-- getting rich. I'm no fan of unions but they played it straight: if you're going to sacrifice your whole life and lower back for the benefit of a faceless corporation then you've got to get paid. But young, aspirational women can be convinced that working longer, "a seat at the table", "promotions" to management-- these are worthy goals: Sandberg said so.

Just because my posts have lots of typos doesn't mean I'm lazy. I am not saying not to work hard, I am not saying not to run out the clock, I'm saying it has to be meaningful, it has to lead somewhere, it has to be for something, and if it doesn't then at least it has to pay. Amazingly on purpose, in the cacophony of economic debates, it's no longer acceptable to talk money. You can talk about unemployment vs. employment, class, titles, debt, growth, seats at table-- but not money, unless they are actors or sports stars. If I told you Katniss was making $10M or $90M you wouldn't know the difference, but try to get $1/hr more from your manager and you find out what a dollar is worth. "I'd like to see you take on more initiative," says your manager, "then maybe we can come up with some solutions that are right for both of us." I'm sorry, is a guy with a Blackberry and a Fox News app telling me I need to stay until 7 but I'm not worth $1/hr more?

None of this has anything to do with feminism, stop saying that word, it's meaningless. This trick applies to men, too, let's go back to Zuckerberg and his hoodie: off of half a century of "the clothes make the man" and "don't dress for the job you have, dress for the job you want", the right to NOT have to get dressed up is sold to men as a perk, but look at the alchemy: it is 100% certain that if you think it's wicked that your job has casual everydays, then you are smart, get paid way less than you are worth and, most importantly, you will never dare ask for more money. Eventually dressing down will be sold as aspirational for women, but don't sweat it, wearing sneakers is a pro-feminist act, after all, they're made almost exclusively by women.

IV.

"Ladies, conference room in ten minutes! We need to strategize!"

This is a picture of a "Lean In," which I assume is why they're all wearing low cut tops. ZING. I can only imagine they are talking about the season finale of The Bachelor, because no legitimate business can be happening with blue pens and MacBook Pros, one of which isn't even open. Unless this is a PR meeting? HR? Erotica book club? I give up. Some other observations: pretty women love beverages and smiling.

My personal vote for Lean In valedictorian is the woman at the bottom left, I don't know her life or her medication history but she has the diagnostic sign of her cuff pulled up over her wrist in what I call "the borderline sleeve," that girl will have endlessly whipsawing emotions and a lot of enthusiastic ideas that will ultimately result in a something borrowed/something blue. Hope her future ex enjoys drama, he's in for seven years of it.

You're going to try and counter that this is a staged publicity photo, but my rum makes me fearless against your rebuttals. During my two months of radio silence I've been writing a book of/on pornography, so I know it when I see it, and I see it. Main thing to observe about this girl-girl feature: all the chicks are white.

Back up, wildman, the easy criticism to make is that there are no blacks in the picture, which is why you made it. Everyone knows that the presence of blacks in such pics is staged, yet we still notice it, still want it. Why? Even though we roll our eyes if a black woman is artificially included in the pic, why are we still satisfied by her presence, or uncomfortable her absence? Because we have no power to change the underlying reality. "Better than nothing."

This is a porno of a white woman's workplace, no room for blacks in this fantasy, they don't watch The Bachelor. Don't confuse aspirational with desirable, Halle Berry is ass-slappingly
hot, no one wants to be her. "If I worked at a female-friendly place
like Facebook," says anyone masturbating to this picture, "I'd totally
have time to get my nails done."

No, the insightful criticism isn't that they didn't artificially include a black woman, it is that they artificially excluded Asian women-- that this photo could only be made by activelydenying a reality: among women, Asian women are proportionally overrepresented in successful positions, especially tech jobs, especially Silicon Valley, and yes, Apple Maps, India is in Asia. Putting this shot together is like staging an NBA publicity photo without any neck tattoos or handguns. "What?" When I was in my 3rd year of medical school and we all had to select our tax bracket, the Asian women went into surgery, ophthalmology, or the last two years of a PhD program, you know where the borderline sleeves went? Pediatrics, which I think is technically sublimation but I'm no psychiatrist. The logic was straightforward: they wanted kids, and, unlike surgery, pediatrics offered future doctor-moms a bit of flexibility, while the Asian women apparently didn't worry about working late because their kids would be at violin till 9:30.

This porno, for the Time et al demographic, cannot allow this bit of reality to be shown, because the moment you see Padmakshi or "Megan" at the table it is too real, it undermines the entire sexism thesis and suggests that something else may be going on, it's like watching an awesome gangbang and suddenly noticing all the empty Oxycontin bottles and that they're speaking Serbian. "That just makes it hotter!" I just logged your ip address. This doesn't mean Asian women don't experience sexual discrimination, it means that when an Asian woman succeeds, the other women in the office don't get to experience sexual discrimination, so they're left only with sexual harassment. Read it a couple of times, it'll make sense and you won't like it.

V.

Still not sold on the thesis that the system wants you to be a battery? Then you're going to have a lot of trouble with this next part...... for the rest of your short life.

The most important-- her words-- advice Sandberg has to offer
women is... to choose your husband carefully. Think about this for a
minute. I've fallen in love with some catastrophes in my life, I've drank a lot of rum, and I'm sure a lot of/all people say
the same about me, but how on earth could I choose whom I fell in
love with? The heart wants what it
wants, even when what it wants is on Prozac. How could I select my
love based on my career concerns, or is the logic that my soulless zombie
skull would love anyone who agreed to do half the chores? The only
person who can pull that off is a psychopath, and sure, you may indeed
succeed in life, but at what cost? What are you good for? But the Time
Magazine force vector doesn't care about your human happiness, it most
certainly doesn't care about your caring about your partner's happiness,
it cares about your role as producer, and by producer I mean consumer.
Eat up, it will have corn in it.

Perhaps the logic is that I shouldn't marry anyone except one who is compatible with my goals, good advice-- except why, a priori, is one's middle management career at General Motors more important than one's marriage?

"Half of all marriages end in divorce." Yes, stupid, everyone says that, half of all marriages under 25 end in divorce, but wait till thirty and the deck is way more favorable, you have to learn how to count cards. But this isn't some kind of failing of marriage itself, some structural defect in a system that's been running for thousands of years, the problem isn't marriage, the problem is you. You think the string of butcheries in your past are the fault of monogamy? As they say everywhere, the single commonality in all of your failed relationships is you. Time to get a cat.

"No, she just means when you get married, to pick someone who supports your goals." In other words, a business relationship? Arranged marriage, only this time by Match.com's algorithm? "No, a marriage based not on passion but on mutual respect and shared values--" Stop, listen to what you are saying. Why would you want a man who agreed to this? Why would a man want a woman who thought like this?

Keep in mind, her message is not for future COOs, her message is for the rest of you organ donors who need to be transitioned from 9 to 5 to 8 to 6, e.g. the Cosmo demo. The Time Magazine demo already gave up on love, after a decade and a half of a narcissistic marriage they only need to be convinced to work Saturdays or spend more. Either will do.

The single greatest obstacle to turning women into fully productive members of the workforce, i.e. batteries, is not men obstructing them but their persistent belief in metaphysics. If the thing that is keeping women out of the underpaid labor force is "family", then family must go, and if what pulls them towards family is love then love has to be a fantasy.

I know what you're thinking. You're worldly, you're cynical, your skeptical. You don't go for all this love crap.... You've figured out that love was a
construct pushed by the patriarchy to keep women tied to the home, to deny them orgasms with multiple penises and vaginas; to prevent
them from getting jobs, money, power. Am I right? Ok, then let's play by your rules, let's
say you're right that love was used to keep women down-- then what does today's suppression of love signify? Could it be that the abandonment of love doesn't also serve the system's purpose?
Or is only the former the trick, the latter a discovery made by your genius +
sophistication + expert reading of human emotions?

You think you've figured out that true love doesn't
exist, that it's all been a kind of romantic lie sold by TV and the media, that real
life isn't like that;
but what I am telling you is that you
didn't figure this out, you were TOLD this. Now, constantly, by every modern
TV show, by Lori Gottlieb and the zombies at The Atlantic, by your friends, by
your parents-- the trick was to get you to think you figured it out on
your own. Grey's Anatomy is a terrible show but at least season one had the
decency to be about having careless sex along the road to finding The One.
You know where their passions lie now? Running a hospital. Yesterday's episode featured eleven minutes of two young, superhot doctors orgasming over the new X-ray machine and how great it is for both efficiency and patient care, it's almost as if the Disney Corp is doing its part to
convince America that hospitals aren't in it for the money, they're warm and fuzzy places that are committed to helping patients with their fertility.

The system's ideal woman is the single mother, she's produced with her
uterus and is willing to go all in on production/consumption, she has no
choice. I'm not saying she wants to be a single mother, I'm
saying that's what the system wants her to be. That's feminism. You can get married
too, as long as he'll make it so you get in at 8.

Unfortunately-- and this is exactly the trick of it all-- it sounds crazy to say, "wait for true love!"-- it sounds regressive to say that pushing yourself at work might not be
worth trading your family, but that's the trick, the system has framed
that question as binary, as if there were no other possibilities, no middle ground. The system
has made it so that you can only choose one side, "aspire to be a COO!" or "don't be a COO-- you should be home with your kids!" It is a classic double
bind, and you can't ask: for the entirety of my life, these are the only two choices?

Love is dying, the system is killing it. The only
acceptable portrayal of fulfilled love is with vampires and BDSM billionaires, not
because those men are great but because there's no worry you'll meet one, enjoy your little fantasy. Now back to
work, whore, you need fulfillment.

Good post Alone. But i don't like your growing paranoya. As if fetish fantasies would be seen as danger by anyone in power. As if there would be individuals you cannot control with glass-cristals and rum.
The reason noone is surveilling us: our lives are boring.

The most important-- her words-- advice Sandberg has to offer women is... to choose your husband carefully. Think about this for a minute. I've fallen in love with some catastrophes in my life, I've drank a lot of rum, and I'm sure a lot of/all people say the same about me, but how on earth could I choose whom I fell in love with?

Love is partially an emotion, but there's also a rational component to it: it's a choice. Rihanna has chosen to marry Chris Brown, despite having gone to the Emergency Room because Mr. Brown says, "I love you" with hay makers. She has made the choice that a marriage with him is worth the chance of a broken jaw (or worse). Rihanna is beautiful, she could pretty easily find someone else, but she has chosen to make Chris Brown the probable co-author of her misery.

We are indeed creatures of emotion, but we can use our intelligence to either justify our bad choices or try to correct them and choose, if not better, at least differently. Perhaps one cannot choose whom you fall in love with, but you can certainly choose not to let someone wreck your life.

I do think she's half right on business. It's not that hard work won't pay off, but it's also true that unless you're actively seeking to show that you can be "the man" so to speak, you won't get anywhere. The reason that the way women work doesn't work has nothing to do with how hard they work, it's the way they handle it. When you make career choices based on future motherhood, you also have to recognize that you've also chosen to remove yourself from the future successful jobs in the company. Either way is fine, there are choices to everything, but women, and I include myself, act as though no choices are being made. If you want the brass ring, than make that your prupose, or you never will. If you say I want some of THIS, and some of THAT, and ooh that shiney thing over there looks pretty, then you've already failed at all of them. That's one thing guys are taught that women are not -- if you want to be successful at a business, you have to be there, you have to fight every day for it, you have to compete for it. You cannot win that competition and have ample time and energy for other things. You cannot win by working 8-5 half assed and then going home and having nothing to do with the workplace.

I work with a lot of women, and to a girl, none of them want to be in management, no matter how much more money they make. It's too much, too stressful, too variable of hours, whatever. But then with the next breath they want the money that goes with it. It doesn't work that way, because the elitist superstructure knows a slave when they see one. When you turn down an advancement, it draws the sharks, chum in the water. They know that you aren't going to take it, so why give it to you? They know that as long as you're simply wishing, nothing will change. The guys at the same store know this -- they know that if they want it better, they have to climb, they have to be junior manager, they have to win big, and they can't be distracted by other wants. Being distracted is the problem. Not knowing for certain what you really want is the problem.

Sandberg got where she is because she decided to be a CEO. She didn't luck into it, she didn't work aimlessly, she simply made up her mind. So I'd say do what she really did -- make up your mind that you're going to have something, one thing, and do it.

love is scary to too many people now, because it's associated with the failed marriages and beatings over generations of male-dominated households. As always too much fear, and running away, towards money or anything.

Wow. Well said. It was inflation that pushed women into the workplace, not "feminism." Feminism was co-opted by the government so that women would embrace their own enslavement for a "seat at the table."

He's right on about the "power" to wear hoodies sold as a perk. This crap has been going on at high-tech companies since the dot-com bust. The job descriptions ramble on and on about catered lunches, yoga tickets, "equity" (that's ultimately worthless), the right to dress like a 21 OR a 25-year-old Joey Ramone 24/7/365 (the man walked down Queens Blvd. in full drag at 21, and donned the iconic jeans and moto jacket by 25, but actually, "Joey Ramone" is not the important part here), and "exciting company retreats to [name of theme park nearby]!!!!* – has anyone ever really stopped to think about why?

Those bullshit trappings are slathered through the job postings to try and obfuscate what they AREN'T offering you. Like time when you aren't on call – we all know that when a link goes down or an app gets a less than a perfect rating in the iTunes store, it's what TLP would indeed call "Defcon 1" to many tech companies. Or vacation time. Or health benefits that actually pay for a fuck of a thing. Or – get this, because it's true – money to compensate for spending the best years of your life humping away at code. So you get to sit on an exercise ball and wear a Yankees hat to work and the company takes you to a Williamsburg beer-tasting conference once a year.

Does any of it make up for the fact that you aren't truly being compensated for the value of your labor? There's no better example of this phenomenon than the current crop of new grads in big cities like LA and New York. You can get them to work for free, they will ask "How high?" on cue when you demand that they jump, so long as they can wear those jeans and eat free pizza for lunch.

I know because am part of the system. I perpetuate it, and I have been for the past 7-8 years, since I got into management. I do what my boss tells me to do, and I hire, train, and manage those entry level workers. The only satisfaction I get is in watching them fine-tune their craft. Watching them get exploited makes me want to vomit, and I know that's partially because they're a reflection of me, only a more extreme one.

"This doesn't mean Asian women don't experience sexual discrimination, it means that when an Asian woman succeeds, the other women in the office don't get to experience sexual discrimination, so they're left only with sexual harassment. Read it a couple of times, it'll make sense and you won't like it."

You're a smart dude!!

When the Asian woman succeeds over White Women, because she is a heartless shrew with no maternal instinct, it makes the argument of glass ceiling moot. So now we have to reframe. You don't want to oppress me! You want to fuck me! Oh the wheels, how they spin.

"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest."

Sometimes the pontificating makes me tired. Go out and love what you do. Your family, your friends, a book, your job. You can love all these things and it's best in my experience to not confuse love with excellence or complete attention. If you can't, maybe work yourself into a psychic break and find the ability to enjoy other things dwelling in your mind.

Maybe I'm misreading your piece, but this seems to me to be some kind of extraordinary hybrid, a cynical rant in the name of love.

I think you could certainly take it as that upon first read. But I'm seeing another message: that what you think work, achievement, "success" – and above all, power – are all about really aren't about any of what you're told – at all.

Some people are going to get caught up in the narrative being about women in the workforce, but that's not actually the point of this piece. Why would TLP have mentioned complementary examples for men if it were simply about women? It's about real power vs. the illusion of power. Sheryl Sandberg has real power, whether she writes Lean In or doesn't, or resigns from Facebook, or doesn't, because she has a fuck-ton of money and money rules the world, and also because so many people are completely captivated by she has to say like she's some kind of Work God/Guru descending down the mountain high to help the little people – and that's real power. The power may be re-packaged and sold in different ways to us, the little people, and the message may be manipulated to generate desire, and an aching feeling of need in all of us, but Sandberg is laughing all the way to the bank.

In the same vein, the mainstream media has a fuck-ton of power, because it can throw money literally anywhere it wants to, and make Americans think, desire, or believe literally anything. A minority of us can call out the media with the appropriate level of detachment and cynicism, whether it's because we've read enough cultural theory and taken enough classes in semiotics that we can call out deception when we see it (i.e. many of the regular posters here), or because we've worked in the media (for example, I worked as a journalist in my early/mid 20s) at least long enough to see its true aims. But decoding messages can be learned, and it's actually quite simple to figure out the difference between what a message appears to say and what it's actually saying with enough practice.

I am not neurotypical, and I actually had to practice at this for at least 5, 6 years more than a person with average dopamine levels. I'm still learning, and I'd better be because otherwise, I'm dead, so no way in hell do I know everything about everything, but I can sure as hell tell when I'm being conned by messaging. Everyone in my profession is being conned by messaging, and that messaging is telling them, "Hey, you're really cool, you're a really elite designer/programmer, which is why you live, breathe, and eat code, and you're doing this for the love, baby, and those trips to the beer garden, and let's not forget the sweet hoodies. So we don't want to hear about how you haven't had a raise in three years, or how the average middle-class family wages have lagged far, FAR behind inflation." Knowing the difference between surface artifice and reality is a SURVIVAL skill in this modern world. It isn't negotiable. You must learn it.

[quote]... could I select my love based on my career concerns, or is the logic that my soulless zombie skull would love anyone who agreed to do half the chores? The only person who can pull that off is a psychopath.[/quote]

I don't think you're a real psychiatrist. You seem to think psychopaths are rare.

Whether she/he/hir/ziz/fuckit! is a real psychiatrist or isn't, I'm not seeing an admission that psychopathology is rare. At all. I'm seeing an acknowledgement that to be accepted as everything to everyone requires an extraordinary feat of deception. CEOs are brilliant at it. Which is why they have real money, and real power.

(March 22, 2013 2:26 PM | Posted by Anonymous: was me, but I forgot that this site doesn't cache your log-in information. I'm relatively new here.)

"I think you could certainly take it as that upon first read. But I'm seeing another message: that what you think work, achievement, "success" – and above all, power – are all about really aren't about any of what you're told – at all."

Right, that of course, but that feels like TLP's MO for most posts, right? I just tend to associate the message "Career isn't as important as you think" with a fairly naive/idealistic moralism. I don't mean that in a negative way either, I just mean, it seems like a very traditional viewpoint? Anyway I think I might just be conflating "Career isn't that important" with "Career isn't what you think it is".

Also I'm curious about the neurotypical response. I usually associate the dopamine type comment with ADHD, but in my experience, I think the non-neurotypical types are the ones who are least easily conned by messaging, because they're not working on the same wavelength so everything kind of hits them caddy-wonkus.

And here I thought Sandberg was successful because she had rich connected DC parents who sent her to Harvard. There she got recruited by Larry Summers and then companies that wanted to use her connections to get favorable terms from elite institutions in government & finance. Hence why Facebook IPOed for more then they were worth and after making $1.1 billion in U.S. corporate profits last year Facebook will rake in $429 million in net tax refunds for the year.

Exactly! Once you fall in love... you will be in love for the next 60years of your marriage and even if he beats you after every dinner intead of a dessert, or he molests your children, or it turns out he's a serial killer... you better pray the society never finds out - how cruel would that be to take your true love into a jail... I'm happy for every girl who's found her true love.. and if that true love turns out to be a sociopathic zombie, it's still better to be in love than to be alone... anyway, we all know that love is metaphysical/biochemical/evolutional miracle and nothing can help you, if you fall in love with a "bad guy"... we just may feel sorry for you (or be happy for you) and hope the "love" will be less cruel in our case... (the whole problem with domestic violence solved :))

PS: silly exaggerations made in purpose
PS2: love IS real, but it's not "what can I do? I fell in love...you can't command your heart" and it's neither a paper sheet with pros and cons and plans for this "event"...
PS3: there are never just two options, and definitely not the two purist, extreme ones.

Sometimes, what attracts us on someone are our own issues... and it's better to solve them before you ruin your life by mistaken your need for love.

Putting anyone, on a cover, dressing red, with a label DONT HATE is playing a game though. It makes me hate her, just like it would make me kick her if she was wearing a sign saying DONT KICK ME.

On another point, all feminism advice seems to be so pointless. For women who want to reach to COO (lol) or top levels on any area, there's plenty of agendered material focused on how to get skills and how to work better - and it's being produced by men, the ones who're supposedly against you climbing up.

Dammit now I'm confused as this feels so very specific to my current crossroad crisis.

I'm about done with my mechanical engineering degree and have two main options. Option one is a stable sedentary job for at least 5 years in Ohio with a reputable company, good salary and benefits. Option two is a consulting company that likes me for all the controls courses I have under my belt that they wouldn't have to train me in, it's at least a 3 year contract that has me moving around a lot but main office is in my home state, bit better salary and benefits but it requires more hours. I'm female, probably should figure that as relevant. Female engineers get a lot of little benefits like SWE and all the unhygienic male engineers that lower standards can take.

There is always a third option. Could just drop out now and wait and bar-tend in Austin like I intended to in high school. Enjoy the hell out of my early 20s, paid in cash, get drunk and fall in love with a post modern kinda guy. That could last at least till 30 but no medical benefits.

But Option one sure did try to sell me that aspiration. After years of working along the lower levels, going between training, sales work, research work, and manufacturing work, I would then be free to move into any department within the company I wanted. The CEO took this route himself! As a young female you could be like this! But at least it'd have me mostly in one place for a good while. White picket fence Ohio sounds all right.

At least Option two was a bit more blunt. "We like you because of your school and background. You would stay within this consulting team for a while then we'd move you around as fit. It's interesting work though. Here are the benefits: $$$" with the option to make more money per hour and live days charging everything to another company. The main office being closer to my family helps. But then looking at consulting it seems lonely. At least every older adult I know in consulting is divorced and lonely. "Yeah I'm in consulting, I could fly to California and back 40 times before running out of all the miles I've built up! My ex-wife lives there though so I don't." It's hard enough to make connections and it can't be any easier traveling 3-4 days out of the week or spending months in one state and months in another. Yet I'm close to my family and making enough to pay for a house for them to all live under. Family being so very important to me, could never have kids and be OK, but just love my brothers, nephew, nieces, mom and dad and all that wanting to provide for them.

Before reading this post I was feeling so stupidly sentimental worrying about future relationships I'm not even in yet interfering with my career. Now it makes sense to worry that traveling all the time might fuck up attempts at relationships and as cheesy as it is it wouldn't be fucking terrible to want someone to love one day. I'm not romantic but I don't like loneliness. I too noticed her lack of wedding ring. That's all I notice of older business men and women: their lack of wedding rings.

oh and if there's one thing I didn't need to be told it was to ask for more money. I know both and others offer good enough pay but I'm figuring I could get more by doing the whole "company B is offering $XXX, if you could match company A? because I really like your company better" and then switching back and forth. That's basically how I got full financial aid besides being broke and female.

Yea for sanity! There is such a thing as "emotional intelligence". And who you choose to love and let into your life, whether that choice empowers you as a person or woman and offers you further growth or disempowers you and all else you can do with your now healthy and useful emotional energy, is VERY definitely your choice and your responsibility. It's a clear sign of your "rationality" and the rational coherence between your mind and your heart, and very much a sign of your ultimate "complete" intelligence and where it will take you in life.

Thus accepting "Boys will be boys" as an excuse for a society that tends to raise boy-jerks, and arguing, "I can't help myself for loving a jerk, it's just LOVE" is just plain emotionally "stupid". And a great way to raise the female counterpart - a 'helpless' victim ready to love jerks. And both together are a fantastic way to get a dysfunctional consumption-as-preferred-drug society -- to avoid understanding that you did have a choice, and you made these bad ones over and over again and never learned from them.

Unlike Sheryl Sandberg who instead "poses" and is posited as the acceptable face of consumer-feminism -- free to spend as much money as she wants as a result of creating a meaningless service in an unsustainable society that "trades" on how many "likes" you get for staying distracted and "posted" in that meaningless void.

There is a rational choice to be made here, as Hubbard so rightly says, and it is the same rational choice to be made with your healthy heart. Emotional intelligent feminists do it all the time -- and don't read Cosmos to find out how -- thus saving themselves from the "tragedy" of destroyed selves and meaningless lives -- with great outfits.

Emotional intelligence means you actually can tell the difference -- in men (or women), as in work, as in 'meaning'. And like any true 'intelligence', it can be learned and worked at until by its very results -- and they are rarely money, cars and 'fame' but your own strength, power and ability -- you know you've gotten it right.

So what can we actually [i]do[/i] about a system that can automate the manufacture and proliferation of false consciousness in every last one of its citizens (and adapt this process to disarm anything subversive and eventually re-purpose it to its own ends)? Is yelling about it on some obscure blog all that's left?

Note I use false consciousness in a very loose sense, not necessarily with Marxist ends in mind.

Actually, you shouldn't underestimate women, we should have an equal power here in our world, although men are mostly over ruling the business world, but if a woman became a CEO or COO, it is actually based on her determination to have it, she doesn't just earned it without a reason, she worked hard for it and she wanted it. Most women prefer to be a housewife because they wanted to take care of their children, it is their own choice and you shouldn't judge it since they also play a big role in their children's life. No one wants to just work and not think of the money that they are earning, that's why people are working hard for the sake of money. Right.

Actually, you shouldn't underestimate women, we should have an equal power here in our world, although men are mostly over ruling the business world, but if a woman became a CEO or COO, it is actually based on her determination to have it, she doesn't just earned it without a reason, she worked hard for it and she wanted it. Most women prefer to be a housewife because they wanted to take care of their children, it is their own choice and you shouldn't judge it since they also play a big role in their children's life. No one wants to just work and not think of the money that they are earning, that's why people are working hard for the sake of money. Right.

Oh definitely; However the problem identified in this post isn't the achievements of an individual or the type of goals they set, but how these achievements are portrayed in the Time magazines of the world as a way to encourage people to WANT to work for as little (in terms of cost, not just the cost of a salary, but also benefits and hours) as possible.

I mean just generally, under capitalism, and in America especially, we reflexively locate the problem in the individual (or specifically, other individuals), to the detriment of other factors. The article presumes the interplay of external factors and individual acts are inextricable, IMO. I tend to agree.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what this piece is about. And how is the headline connected to its content? Given your standard, it's fragmented and poorly written.

The first four sections is a random mixture of The System, feminism, money and finally race.

Part five is interesting, but it's hard to figure out what you're saying. Some sounds interpersonal, other is about The System. Thing bugging me about this part is the premise in many of your (?) statements. You're framing a demo into not buying into love, I think. And perhaps you're replicating how many people speak of love. In any case, I'd like to see a more conscious discussion. What's all that talk about love? Guess that should have been preceded by a mentioning of the meaning of "love" in this (your) context.

And similarly confusing is this question of yours given that you've previously given weight to that only actions can be judged:

"Why would a man want a woman who thought like this?"

And all the talk about The System. Don't get me wrong I believe in Illuminati too, but in stark contrast to the standard academic tale that we're basically programmed by msm, any journalist or producer will tell you about their daily struggle to guess what the viewers would like them to be. How it's all a bloody dogfight for every minute of attention.

Someone wrote that in order to talk to anyone you have to talk to someone. Perhaps you're not addressing the right person. Smile all you like, but I think it's important that the texts you publish here reach a broad audience as possible. You tell people about the world and the people living there. I'm sure it influence individual lives in ways you wouldn't dream about. What you got, is badly needed.

It is also funny how the blonde on the upper left doesn't look she belongs there at all. Seriously, she might be successful computer programmer, but without any background on her I can only think she likes faux-gold, California (not Napa) wines, and red-carpet shows. Waaaaait, is that the magazine readership?

I only disagree on the on the "finding the right partner" bit. While you can't plan who do you fall in love with, some people can only be happy with a supportive person. I will never date a demanding and unsupportive person again (been there, done that, it sucked).

Thanks a million for explaining the reason why guys are encouraged to dress down. My thoughts where "so this is how I'm being shafted?"

A common feminist argument is that there needs to be strong, capable female characters on TV shows and movies so girls who are watching will want to grow up to be like those characters. They see strong, capable male characters (of course, they ignore that the villains are usually male) and assume that boys see these men and that is an important factor in why they grow up to be successful.

While this is not a bad argument at all, it is emblematic of how serious feminists and women take media. The effect of shows like Sex and the City and, now, Girls is amazing. Women take these shows VERY seriously - and, yes, I know not all women do. However, most women consume this propaganda at amazing clip.

That's why movies like "The Hunger Games" cause so much controversy. It is not because women and feminists are fighting for whatever, it is that women don't want to be strong and independent in real life, they want to watch other women do it and live vicariously through the media.

Becoming strong and independent - or whatever you want to be seen as - is work and you might fail. However, you can demand that fictional others do the work in the short and controlled atmosphere of a TV show or movie. You can always tell what a feminist wants to be seen as, because she will agitate for more female scientists/rock stars/lesbians in the media.

Of course, reality is more boring than fiction, so Sandberg causes much consternation because she highlights that hard work and sacrifices a person has to make to reach the heights of corporate America. The fact that women achieve these "successes" simultaneously highlights the real sacrifices in life you must make to get there while also blowing up feminists clinging to excuses like sexism and misogyny for their failures - or, more probably, their banal mediocrity.

If sexism isn't holding them back, then reality flushes to their consciousness and their identity of an oppressed woman is threatened. That's why cries of misogyny - take Julia Gillard, for example - become more insistent, impassioned and hateful. You are attacking their identity if you tell them what mostly likely is holding them back is themselves. Feminists will reframe and use the "3.5 billion" defense and claim you are attacking all women.

You are not, but when you breach narcissistic armor, be prepared for an all out battle to reassert their views of themselves.

The effect of media on this country is just awful, as it's effects on American women. I have honestly heard numerous women in my professional life utter phrases like, "I wasn't like this in that Lifetime movie!," "The Today Show totally said something different!"

well to be honest I've read that rihanna started hitting him and THEN he beat the shit out of her. A laudable, innocent guy? Not at all, he should have controlled himself, but it makes it easier to accept she can forgive him

You are exactly right of course. I think it partly goes back to how boys and girls are trained. Girls are trained to spend a lot of time on feelings. Now don't get me wrong, everyone has feelings, and no they aren't "rootkits" they're natural. But the difference is how we teach boys and girls to deal with anything -- boys are told to do so despite whatever the problem is. If the math is too hard, try again. If you're afraid of heights or something, boys are told to challenge that fear, to do that anyway. Girls are not taught that, they are never made to do so despite. If the rollercoaster is scary, "oh you don't have to do that honey, we'll do something else" If the math is too hard, they give up and run to a grownup to solve that for them, and they never learn to do it themselves. This is the problem, when you are trained to be hobbled by feelings and to quit when things get too hard.

The problem is that the things we teach girls is the opposite of what is actually demanded by the real world. The real world couldn't give a fig what your "feelings" are, if they get in the way, we'll find someone else. They don't care that you're afraid, they don't care that you'd rather be at junior's little league game. So when girls are held back by feelings, they end up in the low power jobs. The power jobs require supreme sacrifice and emotional control, they require 100 hours a week in butt-in-chair time, they require you to be able to be objective about the tough decisions you're going to be making.

The women's movement is clueless. I've said that before. Honestly if you want to be successful, take what the women's movement says and do the opposite.

Every woman vice president I've worked for has been an idiot. The reason being that they were promoted because they looked nice in dresses and could sling buzzwords as well as any retarded male vice president. And the diversity, don't forget the diversity.

The woman I've worked with who would have made great bosses didn't want to be promoted to vice president because it would be assumed that they too were idiots. Or lesbian eskimos. Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

And smart people know that the special Blackberry is a species of the genus leash.

My suggestion would be that you do consulting for a couple of years. Use the opportunity to see other cities and hopefully countries, maybe find out what you want long-term along the way. Luckily your 20s doesn't need as "solid" of relationships, and getting married young may not be wise these days. If you can, get into management, be able to control your own time if possible. That way you can make time for family. But, its not easy, so good luck.

p.s.
Least you are from Austin, so even if your job doesn't leave you much time for fun, I'm sure college wasn't boring. Least, that is my experience from growing up here.

I would really recommend against Option #3 if you want to pursue a longterm career in engineering. You probably did better in engineering school than I did, so it might not be such a hindrance to you, but I took a break from the engineering profession for a few years and it really damaged my ability to be employable in the field.

When members of marginalized groups begin to get the trappings of power, they should reach for their wallets. They may be a facade while the real power flows elsewhere. Rwanda is the president of the Security Council this month; no coincidence that the UN is more than ever a supper club for former would-be foreign ministers.

How can I find love when the majority of people use criteria for love that has been marketed to them and project onto me things that aren't there so as to keep their delusions afloat? Their algorithm squeezes my words and actions into a narrow box which leads to either being dismissed or being imagined a person who I am not.

One thing I noticed--and I agree with the general thesis, here, this is just a point, though a maybe relevant one--is that a systemic desire to push marriage-as-a-business-relationship in the face of consumerism and a capitalistic practice that is going to kill marriages via alienation anyway, which you are here fighting, sounds rather an awful lot like another conclusion, which you happen to peddle: forgetting the University as a means of learning, go there instead to win at career bingo. There is a rather strong collusion between the two, and one can read the paragraphs that make up the first half of section V and replace all instances of "marriage" with "school" and "love" with "education" and come to essentially the same conclusions.

I love the way you have recently been illuminating the narcissism/commercialism inherent to modern feminism.

However, I recently stumbled on a link to this blog on a PUA site. I have to admit I found that disturbing, ironic, both. While that corner of the internet could provide you a loyal and active readership, I think the analyzing aspects Manosphere/PUA community would be excellent fodder for a post mirroring this one. Especially the bit about "love".

"No, she just means when you get married, to pick someone who supports your goals."
"No, Roosh means when you finally condescend to let a woman have the keys to your apartment and don't insist on fucking her in the ass exclusively, it better be an 18 year HB10 virgin who doesn't mind if you cheat with her hotter tighter sister."What kind of girl would completely submit to man such as this one?
Well if you follow these steps, you can increase your "status" not in a tangible way (resources, influence) but in an intangible way based on qualities you've always magically had. You can have the male equivalent of what Cosmo promises, you can have it all.

I know what you're thinking. You're worldly, you're cynical, your skeptical. You don't go for all this love crap.... You've figured out that love was a construct invented to limit you to putting your penis in only one woman at a time (a man of your stature would have a harem if you were alive 1000 years ago)and allow her exclusive rights to your hard-earned resources. Could it be that the abandonment of love doesn't also serve the system's purpose? Perhaps a king without a castle will have no incentive to forgo pay for the right to wear a college hoodie and an extended adolescence?
You think you've figured out that true love doesn't exist, that it's all been a kind of romantic lie sold by TV and the media, that real life isn't like that. You don't have to look like McDreamy or get a high-powered job.
If potent, you can gain temporary sexual access and affection from the women that other men desire by playing word games at some meat market at last call. If not, you can fill your hard drive with imaginary conquests. Women are all old and fat and unlovable nowadays anyway.

The system has framed that question as binary, as if there were no other possibilities, no middle ground. Either you marry a shrew who will gain 50lb and take all of your belongings, or you can spend you adulthood sleeping with 20-something beauties and spending your money on cool shit... like video games or an ATV.

Could it be that the abandonment of love doesn't also serve the system's purpose?

Here's what I saw TLP saying: the system positions marriage as a business deal and make dreamy romantic love unattainable (sexy vampires being in short supply), the system happily offers a consolation prize: work and consumption.

TLP's best and most coherent post yet, even though he still worships 'excellence' and 'competence' at your job despite not addressing the fact that corporations have thrown out all good training programs, preferring 'self-starters' (acquisitions from weaker companies or people who were taught all the necessaries by immediate or extended families whose prosperity depends on the company.)

Also do make a note that the feminized workplace is ITSELF a detriment to people independently getting better at their jobs, and also the reason so many young men are sullen, angry, unemployed, cagey, meme-focused, addicted to transient pleasures, over-socialized, and incompetent.

Solid gains in understanding, hope to see even better posts in the future. May we eventually advance to publicly burning Swarm Queens like Adria the Witch at the stake when they start laying Drama Eggs in public places.

Nuanced positions always run the risk of being misunderstood by people infected with confirmation bias. You see it in the comments here all the time. Total misogynists mistaking Alone's criticisms for "women don't belong in the workplace" and so on. It's frustrating, but as long as somebody is calling it out, I think we're in decent shape.

I didn't miss the point, I pointed out that some of Alone's recent posts have attracted interest in certain circles. His efforts to expose narcissism/solipsism have been co-opted by those who are transparent narcissists, or, at least generate web traffic/instructional DVD sales by preaching to the converted. When this happens, the point of the essay is nullified.

The irony is that there are very apparent parallels between the narrative behind this Time/Cosmo propaganda and the worldview of those mentioned above.

"No, a marriage based not on passion but on mutual respect and shared values--" Stop, listen to what you are saying. Why would you want a man who agreed to this? Why would a man want a woman who thought like this?

Because he and she are practical. They have goals, they make choices that help achieve those goals, and have the pattern-recognition skills to avoid duplicating others' mistakes (such as placing undue importance on youth's fleeting passions).

It isn't listening to her higher reason rather than her animal urges that makes a woman become a single mother.

For those questioning PUA's - and the like - I will not defend at all what they do.

However, I will say that they are responding to their environment. A careful reading of their posts/writing strongly suggests that most of what they suggest applies to the US - and the West.

To regulars of this blog, it would not be surprising to know that many of those "PUA's" have trouble attracting women outside the West. Narcissism is the dish served cold to the children of the West - and they die on it as cold as it ever was.

It is true that anybody - in any culture - who succeeds has a degree of narcissism. However, that is the problem and the solution.

Applying this the West, in order to succeed, you have to have narcissistic qualities. Why? We live in a narcissistic society.

Do you think we would have the Internet, the whole discipline of psychology, and the civilization we have without narcissism? Do you think Kobe Bryant would be one the 10 best NBA players of all time without narcissism?

Which presents the question: Would we ever matter without a degree of narcissism? Would we ever be debating these issues on a computer, over the Internet, in our heated/cooled homes without narcissism?

The ladies at this blog try to tie men's falling behind to entitlement, but it seems to me like men are responding to the fact that a college degree does not carry the power it once did.

Not only does it ignore that fact the men ARE falling behind women - and, as such, the equalists need to find a way that doesn't involve them - because they would have to judge themselves. We know how well it works out for any judgmental ideology.

Building on TLP's previous post - as well as this one - the power gained from a college degree is rapidly fading. Women have responded by doubling down on getting degrees.

This article points out that STEM degrees are still dominated by men - this is where the jobs are at. A weak exhortation is made for more women in these fields.

The point of this Jezebel article is to make women who major in unemployable fields - and work hard in academia - feel better.

"Don't worry - you are better than that male who played Call of Duty all day and didn't go to class. You might have a 4.0 in Nothing and are totally employable and capable - it is the job market and those employers are too stupid at their job to realize you would become the Best-ever cubicle warrior for them."

Pity - you could have made a great housewife. Or engineer. Does it matter?

Nice to see a new post. As usual, almost too much information. It's easy to write one of those really long comments in an effort to hit all the points. I'm going to try and hit just one or two.

First..in answer to this question...

"Then can anyone please tell me what those insights are? Are they editing yellow chicks out because their demo is jealous white trash? I don't get it."

Not at all. The point, as someone else mentioned, is that if you are focused to the exclusion of everything else, gender becomes a lot less of a factor.

As far as love, and I doubt TLP reads many of these comments, but I have to say I am a bit surprised he doesn't understand the dynamics.

Women have always had a much more practical streak when it comes to who they marry...It's men that marry for love as they plan on being the breadwinner anyway. On a side note, this same dynamic is why we are now seeing so many out of wedlock babies.

Women and love....late teens/early twenties it's all about potential...if they settle down at all.

Late twenties/early thirties....a bit more information available..solid job with prospects becomes more important...looking for a less exciting and less dominant personality....interestingly, the very things that make a man successful at work are also the ones that so many new women don't care so much for at home.

Time running out..if they haven't popped one or two out already on their own...once again, the interesting thing is how often they claim they don't need a man, but complain loudly about not getting any "other people" help, ie. government. Solid job with security, and time available to help at home.

Older....All depends. If the finances are right, generally like to have a man around, as long as he knows his place and doesn't get in the way. More a matter of status and a little help and security.

On another note, I find the discussion over money, or lack thereof, rather ironic. It's as if some of those commenting have all of a sudden woken up to the fact that it's nice to get paid for what you do....Buy any books lately? or just read TLP's articles for free?

I don't think women don't belong in the workplace, I think they should be treated in the workplace exactly like a man. I think they should behave in the workplace exactly like a man as well. It's really mafia-land in the business world, and if you can't thrive in that environment, stay at home. it's not going to change for you, and if it does, it's going to lose power very quickly, because they won't WIN anymore. the truth is that business is commercial warfare, and if you can't accept that, then it's not for you. the ideal boss is Tony Soprano, not some stupid twat who worries about how people feel. So, be like a man, put those emotional desires aside, and go do it. The maleness of the sciences is what keeps it powerful, and the femalness of the other areas of academia are what make it weak. Feelings are inferior to truth. Be a stoic, not a pansy. That's where the power lies.

Sidenote -- I think part of the reason that we have so many gay men on TV lately is exactly because of the way women act in the workplace -- they aren't demanding that the employer take notice and focus more on feelings and symbols than results, and this is desirealbe in the workplace. So promote the feminine gay male and the metrosexual so as to have a sizeable percentage of males in the workforce who are not the go-getter type. Imagine having all the advantages of an unattached male without the need to reward him like a man, without him demanding recognition for success, without having to pay him like a man.

What's unfortunate about this post is that I could never send it to my leftist friends, who would agree with nearly 100% of your analyses (being that it's more or less a structural marxian diagnoses) because you're such a dick about being a "politically incorrect" truth-teller in a swarmy Bill Maher type of way. Bill Maher, who is a fucking idiot. It's also amazing to skim through all these comments by people who obviously didn't read the post but have some sort of "opinion" on women/patriarchy. MRA are the worst.

There is an undercurrent that I find horrifying about the widespread use of "political correctness" as a term, by anyone.

In the 1960s and '70s, the left began to recognize that internal political debate was being hampered by crippling "revolutionary" circumspectness -- couching every "he" as a "he or she," Referring to mankind as "humankind," trying to be inclusive in every way to everyone. It was ridiculous -- to the left -- and so the phrase "political correctness" was coined to make fun of this awkward, stilted, revolution-speak language.

So, when someone would speak normally, and one of the forbidden language forms or pronouns was used, someone else -- as a joke -- would chime in with "that's not P.C."

It was a way for the Left to make fun of itself in a way that it needed to and deserved. Most importantly, it recognizes overtly that the trivia that dogmatists might criticize are unimportant. It was a joke that made a moderate, sensible point of critique within the Left.

The Right took hold of the term, using it to ridicule earnest attempts to make discourse more civil or policy more responsible, painting them with the same brush as the myopic, dogmatic revolution-speak it was originally intended to make light jest of.

It is now assumed by the general public that this notion of "politically correct" speech was a serious one, and that the left tried to impose it on others, and that it is an example of the Left overreaching in social areas. This is patent bullshit, and I am disgusted that nobody who wasn't around at the time recognizes it. Using the term reinforces the success of this right-wing propaganda move, and I hate it.

Do you even realize how absurd you are being? You're literally complaining that an otherwise sound article is not politically correct enough for your friends and that it is Alone who should adjust, not your friends. Rather than correct their error, you would have everybody continue to modify their behavior according to a mode of communication that clearly OBFUSCATES matters to the point where people who agree think they're disagreeing.

I don't think that there is any attempt to make Sandberg appealing to men on the TIME cover. Covering her wedding ring is a signal to the women who read TIME that her marriage in incidental, unimportant. She hasn't been saddled for 20 years by some balding asshole who doesn't pick up his socks. He is a tertiary part of her life, he doesn't impede on her, she doesn't need him. She plucked him out of other men because he suited her purposes, not because he was the best of a handful of options she chanced across. He has no claim on her, even the twinkle of the ring he bought her decades ago doesn't warrant a couple of pixels on HER magazine cover.

This is "porn" for women who are working 60 hours a week doing something unimportant and are still economically/emotionally dependent on their husbands. She has succeeded using the same "intellect" that the readership possesses, she is the realization of their goals, what they imagine they could have been. Time readers are already wives, mothers, and batteries but they are oh so much more than that.

On the Cosmo cover, she bares her wedding ring proudly to hopeful young women whose pornographic imaginations have not yet been mitigated with disappointment and diminished returns. See? Even though I'm smart and driven and worth millions of dollars, I still have a 6 carat market value!

TIME: I'm married, but I don't have to be.
Cosmo: I have everything, there actually is such a thing, keep plugging away!

Hm, you're probably right that this has nothing to do with appealing to men. I am pretty out of touch with the kind of person who reads Time. But I do know, from teaching female grad students, that many of them don't just want your wisdom: they want you to be thin, and stylish, and unimpeachable (but still feminist!), so they can project their future self onto you. If they knew what it takes to be really great, they would run screaming from it....

I'm not saying the author should change this blog post in any way. How other people read this is not my problem (unless I feel like commenting), and people's political hangups are not my errors to correct. It's a waste of fucking time.

Unfortunately the Dunning-Kruger is very strong with affluent, entitled college kids that skidded by with their grade-inflated, rubber stamp degree in Baby's First Leftism.

I'm not the same person you replied to originally - and I'm assuming this person was more lamenting this fact than asking for a change - Anyways, sorry about the confusion.

"You think you've figured out that true love doesn't exist, that it's all been a kind of romantic lie sold by TV and the media, that real life isn't like that; but what I am telling you is that you didn't figure this out, you were TOLD this. Now, constantly, by every modern TV show, by Lori Gottlieb and the zombies at The Atlantic, by your friends, by your parents-- the trick was to get you to think you figured it out on your own... "

Of course you believe “true love doesn't exist “.

Because your parents told you.

Hell, they demonstrated it by not staying together.

And you, like any good child, think your parents know more than you do.

Don't deny it.

It's human nature.

I did, too.

For a very long time.

However, the problem isn't that they lied.

The problem is they were the most selfish generation to walk the planet and, quite simply, they did not want you to succeed where they failed.

And that you're retarded.

Seriously.

I don't say that in the pejorative sense.

I mean:

re·tard·ed
/riˈtärdid/

Adjective

Less advanced, esp. mentally, than is usual for one's age.

You're still seeing the world through the eyes of a child seeking answers and validation.

All while you have greater access to more knowledge in your bathroom [if you remembered to bring your cell phone in] than every living human prior to your first breath.

It could also be that you're a narcissist.

That you want to be seen as “strong and independent”.

Well, if you're getting food-stamps, WIC, money from your family or friends:

You're definitely not independent.

[I, sure as Hell, am not independent.

I owe my friends money.

And if they're reading:

You'll get it back.

Scout's honor.]

But, yes, you don't need to share the remote and can forgo hygiene more than most.

Congrats, the Pyrrhic victory is yours.

If monogamy is not your speed, you could always try polyamory.

That is, if you believe “sex = love”.

Those of us that have emotionally progressed past 16 will be waiting for you at the other side.

MRA's are no worse or better than feminists. THey are both groups of people with a victim complex who are always completely free of any kind of fault, 100% of the time and can't think past their perceived issues.

Mra and feminism are great to make society unprogress and individuals stagnate

She didn't decide she wanted anything...Larry Summers decided she wanted it. He told Zuck to give her the FB job b/c Zuck didn't have any female execs. She's a quota. Where are the reports of anything she's actually achieved at FB except leave at 5:30 and write her own book? Nowhere.

I think this is to let other women be aware that they can dream big and that they are capable of getting into a higher position. It is true that this is not to inspire women but this is a reminder that they can also be in a position that mostly men are occupying.

No, you don't choose who you fall in love with. Sorry. The reason is not the top of the human being, the heart is. That being said, you do choose who you associate with, and that will influence who is available for you to fall in love with. If you want to love someone who isn't insane, don't hang out with insane people. It's really basic stuff that they used to teach? You know those jingoistic, reactionary people? "Watch out who you keep company with"? That doesn't simply mean 'hang out with the rich kids to make connections' it means, when you choose to hang out with such and such a set of persons, you have premade certain choices about your future which you may not be happy with.

This is traditional wisdom based on human nature. Take it or leave it.

Desire,(or lust) and the Will are so closely linked that they are almost the same thing. If you desire (or lust) for something you may very well decide to get it. Desire (or lust) is controlled by belief. If you believe that a 9-5 job will kill you, you will not desire it. Wheather or not you get a 9-5 job is another matter. Marketing is to inform you to change your beliefs and thus your desires (or lusts). That is the totality of what this missive is saying. And I love the humor.

What I don't understand is why on the one hand, the system wants its existing workers to go from 8 to 10 hour days in order to meet rising work demands, yet at the same time it's creating an underclass of privileged hipsters on foodstamps? Why not entice them to join the workforce and force everyone to work fewer hours while being paid the same or even less per hour than they are now?

If you are a Director of a government agency then your pay,your budget, and thus your power depend on growing your agency. For Welfare it means you import cheap labor and you put hipsters on food stamps. Oh, the cheap imported labor is also on welfare. End result; bigger agency and bigger paycheck. Simple, once you figure out people are not basicly Good.

Feminism has honored women--by turning them into men. Now 'they' seek to emasculate men by stripping the workforce of the last few notions of competitiveness, combativeness, and male camaraderie, i.e. everything that makes Business and the Economy ACTUALLY FUNCTION. America used to lead the world in manufacturing and innovation, now we lead the world only in Victim Mentality. In the meantime Asia--where Men are still in charge in every meaningful way--is kicking our collective behind.

Why weren't there school shootings and widespread drug use and single motherhood fifty years ago? Because Mom was home doing the Most Important Thing--raising the kids, and enforcing a code of discipline on all those latchkey truants. That rise in your blood pressure just reinforces the point, that you are sold on the Big Lie: Women are only valuable to the extent that their input can be measured as part of the GDP.

Now those latchkey kids have every single toy that a two-income family can provide but are unable to form healthy feelings of attachment, much less Love, to family, friends, or Civilization--and get all their Sense of Self from Cosmo, MTV, and The Bachelor. No wonder Alone drinks. Me too.

First off, I'm not saying that the business world doesn't get that feelings exist. That's not it at all. What I'm saying is that they don't have much interest beyond how it affects their bottom line. Yes it's run by people, probably most of them want to be at little league games and they have families they want to spend more time with so they understand all that. But they also understand that they can't let that overwhelm their logical brain to the point where it affects the business. Even the Army isn't going to let your feelings get in the way of the war that they have to win.

I'm not going to dictate either way for women about where they want to work, or even if they want to work. I don't think it's my place. But the ting I'll fault women for is not making a grownup choice about it. If you choose A, you don't get to whine when you lose out on option B. If you choose to be a housewife, you don't get to whine about feeling unfulfilled when your neighbor gets a promotion, or poor when your single income means vacation at a local campground instead of the bahamas. At the same time, you don't get to cry about lack of family time when you choose to make a career in the business world. I've seen some women who are stronger than men, I don't think artificially keeping them out of the workplace helps anything, but there are a lot of women who still think there are no choices to be made. There are.

But they also understand that they can't let that overwhelm their logical brain to the point where it affects the business.

I think you have that backwards. If your child was in the Little League game he was trying to go to, he'd just as soon tell you to take your black ass back to Hymietown if your kid slid safe beneath his.

I've read a number of her posts, and this is simply brilliant. I wish I could write one third as well as she does.

I've worked in industry for a number of years and climbed the ladder with success. The money is the only reason it was worthwhile. The first decade of "loving your job" and working killer hours turns sour sometime during the second decade. Then you coast into your third decade, try to put things back together and find a hobby. Thank God I managed to stay married and my kids still talk to me. If I did all that and did not get the money, then I'd truly be a depressed battery.

Sooner or later, every job stinks. If you are not getting the money, it stinks twice as much. Focus on getting paid for your work, or focus on your life outside of work. Some people are good at both. But make these decisions intentionally, not carelessly.

if you're a healthy human being you should probably do some kind of work that results you achieving something concrete that you can be proud of and even better yet maybe spend a significant portion of time outside because why would humans be an exception to the rule that stagnation equals illness?

The goal here is not to get women to suppress their feelings in order to become better batteries. Sure Sheryl Sandburg has, but nobody expects Cosmo readers to. The point is exploit and recalibrate those feelings to best serve the system.
Want to be a worthy woman? This is what that sort of woman acts and thinks like.
Want respect? This is the type of respect you may demand (parking spaces, crying at work).
Want power? This is what “power” looks like.
This is only a slight deviation from “Want to be beautiful? This is what beautiful women buy and eat.” That occupies most pages of the magazine.

And eventually:
Love your kids? Better work long and hard to ensure their economic welfare. Don’t risk getting fired by asking for more money or less hours. That isn’t even on the table.
Stay home? Not with your mortgage/student loans.

Sandberg is a terrible battery, though. She would never allow herself to be taken out of the Palm Pilot and put into a flashlight during a power outage.

A "better" battery is one most malleable to the interests of the powerful, switchable between functions willy-nilly: "Laid off from the auto plant? Forget about your 30yrs of expertise and try your math skills at being a Walmart checkout clerk!"

Another great example from Alone on how media manipulate ordinary folks into batteries. And it doesn't matter whether you're in the demographic that reads Time or Jezebel. Sandberg = Feminism? Give me a break. Here's what the "true" advice from Sandberg should be:

1) Get born to super smart, connected parents (dad's an ophthalmologist, mom's a stay at home mom with a PhD[!])
2) Be whip-smart
3) Get a great mentor to help you (Larry Summers picked her as a post-BA research assistant at the World Bank -- then Harvard MBA, then maybe 12 months at McKinsey, then Chief of Staff at the Department of the Treasury (at 25 or 26 years old)

Spouse selection? No impact on HER success -- she was 4 years into her Google gig when she got married (and was 35).

I know. I think that's why a lot of modern "education advice" is "find your passion". If it's your passion, you supposedly don't care about the money, you work long hours to success, and so on. Plus, if you pick something that doesn't pay or have any future whatsoever in college, you get to spend your entire life paying student loans while working for dirt cheap at starbucks.

I'd tell a kid to choose based on the work that pays well enough to get the life he wants and that he won't want to jump off a bridge doing. And get paid for it. always get paid for it.

I apologize for my misplaced comment earlier. Rereading the article and the comments make me realize that I might very well have missed the gist of it.

As a man, some of these women issues fly past me if I don't pay enough attention. I'd love to debate, but I'm afraid I only have answers, not perspectives or exciting frames.

Don't hate her because she's successful?

As merely a personal note, I've never understood those who (and they exist) are intimidated by a strong woman, whatever that means. I want to find someone to travel life with, and of course I prefer her to be wealthier, smarter, prettier, faster, stronger in fact to be better than me in every respect. This thinking is (of course) not central or serve as guideposts. It's just, who wouldn't like to have a superior spouse?

What allow me to think like that, is twofold. Firstly it's a phantasy and secondly what form the base of a solid relationship, is communication, friendship, love and willingness to sacrifice ones ego. Love is often talked of as an emotion or a condition, but as we all know it's far more than that, and that it has no gender, age or regard for what's popular.

The only vital factor left out is power. What use is good intentions if one doesn't have the means to execute them? Sure, on judgment day intentions will rule but we have a life to live first.

I am not alone, but there is no-one to talk with, cause I'm powerless. Would you step closer to someone if you knew it meant instability and hardship? Oh take this emo bs with a grain of salt. It's just me. Here. Now. Think I'll rather find and attack a misspelling.

I'm probably crazy and presently, what I find dismaying is rooted in a particular females idea that she unilaterally decide how it works. Don't want her to go, but even if I did - would she?

Your vast ignorance of recent history would be forgivable if you didn't use it to support your caricatural and archaic (by like 100+ years) perspective on feminism.

So yeah, for those of us more realistic and logical "masculine" types tend to deal in facts. Those of us oriented toward an understanding of historical and economic fact, rather than validating our feelings -- or in your case prejudices -- often see things more clearly.

The "feminization" of the workforce didn't ruin American manufacturing and R&D. It was actually the opposite. So let's get in touch with your logical side.

Take more than few minutes to think it through - was it globalization of free trade and cheap labor abroad? the subsequent financialization of the wealthiest sectors of the American economy? or the 30 years of cuts to the social safety net, union busting, stagnant middle class pay, and the cuts to state level funding for universities? I can go on.

Oh and 50 years ago our president was assassinated by a man angry at "the system". You really have no idea what you're talking about.

What I don't understand is why on the one hand, the system wants its existing workers to go from 8 to 10 hour days in order to meet rising work demands, yet at the same time it's creating an underclass of privileged hipsters on foodstamps?

It's because hipsters can only (temporarily) relieve their perpetual ennui by purchasing more consumer goods. For those who define themselves by how they look and appear to others, hipsters are a barometer of where to spend their money, consciously or not. Hipsters are a bellwether of commercial culture. For a society obsessed with image, the hipster lets us look in the mirror, often without realizing it's ourselves we are looking at.

"It is time for us to face the fact that our revolution has stalled. A truly equal world would be one where women ran half of our countries and companies and men ran half of our homes. The laws of economics and many studies of diversity tell us that if we tapped the entire pool of human resources and talent, our performance would improve.

Shrinkage nothing. Social spending has exploded in real terms over the last 30 years. That's why government spending is fantastically higher than it's ever been before, and why we borrow 40 cents for every federal dollar we spend.

Social Security and Medicaid *each* eat up more money than military spending, just by themselves, and then there's all the other programs. And there's ObamaCare coming down the pike. And then on top of federal spending is all the state spending. Saying social spending is down by any metric is beyond farcical; it's an insane inversion of reality.

Here we go. You engage clearly inane statements with facts, and backed into a corner, liberals smoothly transition into silly abstractions. Notice EH only tacitly admits I am correct by avoiding the substance of what I wrote, because he / she has no way to concretely dispute it. (By the way, one of the reasons "need", to the extent that can be quantified, is "up"--assuming it is--is because of the gigantic drag government debt is just starting to exert on the economy.)

Also, notice according to EH that *I* engaged in the "derail," despite the fact that I was responding to a previous post with, you know, facts.

I'm not even sure what EH's supposed 'point' is meant to be on military spending. However, his / her wielding of terms like "tea party" and "Washington Post" is presumably enough to evoke head nods from the Amen Corner, which I can only assume was EH's sole goal, so kudos on that.

I didn't mention military spending, past pointing out that it was far smaller than social spending. Again, a simple fact. You've talked about it more than I have.

As a head's up, your response to Regin regarding his / her equally off-topic statement on social spending et al apparently got eaten. I know you don't seek to police only those people you disagree with, right?

I thank you for your kind remark on the clarity of my comments. Don't worry, if you keep working at it, you can get there too some day.

I don't think you actually understand when and where these cuts occurred, the demographics they targeted, how costly programs like AFDC would've ended up in the absence of "reform", or what their political aims behind the cuts were at the time.

In real dollar terms spending on welfare is up, so what? There are more people living in the US, and more of them are reduced to debt peonage and stagnant wages. They lack of healthcare and job security to speak of. Of course spending is going to be up, genius.

It's ironic - like most Americans, find difficulty in simple arithmetic, and of course do not have the slightest understanding of the workings of the wasteful, inept (but supposedly omnipotent when needed) federal gubbmint.

Social security actually is financially sound, and the PPCA reduced the shortfalls in Medicare. Thanks for playing.

That someone making that claim feels secure in sarcastically referring to someone else as a genius is astounding. You sad, sad person.

I note that again you admit I was correct in the mundane, boring *factual* sense. Social spending has clearly exploded over the last 30 years. Instead it is again argued that I am wrong, however, in the more important *abstract* sense. Yes, social spending is way up (despite the earlier claim that it wasn't), but it doesn't matter, because we still aren't spending *enough* How much is enough? You'll let us know when we get there, right?

What a wonderful argument! It allows you to ignore all those icky numbers and facts as unimportant. Another victory for the Stupid Party! Hazzah!

You're wrong in the sense that you did not understand the post you were replying to originally, cherry picked one claim and stretch something to mean something it didn't. Clearly if these cuts were made over a number of decades, spending could still increase later on. For example the major increase in the cost of healthcare, precarious finances of the "middle class" and the uptick poverty -- all demands placed on these systems as a result. These are all facts. Not abstractions.

The policies were restructured to spend less at the time they were written, and also to mitigate what was believed to be a "culture of dependency". For example, in 1996, Clinton's bill was sold as a way to save money over the long term and change the way in which welfare was distributed. In a very real sense it was a "cut to social spending" in 1996. Over time, spending still increased, due to macroeconomic factors like the uncompetitive price of labor in a lot of sectors of the American economy, especially manufacturing. This led to a growing underclass of under- and un-employed workers with high debt loads living paycheck to paycheck forced to rely on social spending to fill the gap in their meager wage. Again -- facts.

What you wrote is your deficit in knowledge of recent history and simple math skills speaking, nothing more.

Ok let's talk this blog, then? EH your argument was that feminism made the US economy uncompetitive was patently false, and that's what my first post in reply to you was aimed at proving.

I'm flattered you think I'm a CIA agent playing 5 dimensional chess with your ideological commitments ...if only I could land a paid position to argue with idiots online! But wouldn't the culture of "feelings" that's been cultivated in the workplace have a rule in place to prevent me from calling you a mental gimp?

I mean since you make such persuasive, credible yet subversive arguments like "women ruined America" I'm sure you're on a watch list somewhere. Best of luck getting that RFID chip out of you.

The thing I keep noticing is you that can't simply say, "You were right." You keep explaining how I was supposedly wrong, "in a sense," or something of the like. But by dancing around the issue, you basically undermine everything else you say. Although admittedly your positions can't stand much more undermining, so I understand your hesitancy.

Another instance is how you can't apparently say, "I was wrong." Or even, "I misspoke." Don't think people don't notice the goal post moving. A bit ago you wrote, "Social security actually is financially sound." Now without acknowledging it, you instead say "Social Security is currently solvent."

That 'currently' is a rather big matter, isn't it? You can look at a guy who's bleeding out (an apt analogy, given our discussion) and say "He's currently fine." Sure, but in ten minutes he'll be dead.

Then you post some article by the internationally famous Matt Bruening. He's literally *one word* into his piece before he unlimbers the phrase "right wing." So what? Just saying someone is right wing doesn't add anything to the discussion. Address the substance of what they are saying. Again, though, that puts people like you at a serious disadvantage.

Mr. Bruening in his hilariously unserious post natters on about fixes for SS. His supposed solutions all exist in a vacuum. The government is right now adding trillions of dollars to the national debt every year, when you throw in state debts (which doesn't even take into account SS and Medicaid shortfalls and pension obligations). Don't worry, when the nation's entire financial house falls due to Lovecraftian levels of national debt, the SS room will be left standing.

My 'right wing' sources that I personally am relying on? Forbes and the even more notoriously 'right wing' ABC News. In April of 2012, ABC quoted the Board of Trustees of Social Security itself--presumably another right wing source--and noted that in *one year*--from 2011 to 2012--the estimate on when SS funds would run out dropped three years, from doing so in 2033 instead of 2036.

Maybe 2033 sounds a long way away to you, but perhaps you should ask my 6 year old niece how far away that sounds. And given that their solvency estimate dropped three years in but twelve months, are you seriously going to tell me you expect SS to remain solvent even that long? Because I sure as heck don't.

I'm pretty certain the borderline sleeve is to disguise self injury. However, a few years ago these and sweatbands covering the wrists were fashionable among first wave "emo" kids. It sort of implied that you might be cutting to others in that subculture, without actually having to cut.

Alone has criticized at length the process through which mental illnesses are categorized, diagnosed, and treated. Self-injury puts any teenaged girl on the fast-track to a borderline personality diagnosis. This continued to happen even as cutting supplanted black lipstick as a social signal to other teenagers that one's suffering was authentic. DSM, curiously, includes mood swings and unstable interpersonal relationships. As prophesized, these girls will continue with adolescent attention-seeking behaviors of this variety into adulthood, learning they will be always be rewarded Seroquel and Alones.

You're factually wrong. No dissimulation here. Also let's ignore for a second the absurdity of implicitly accepting a political label I have no allegiance to.

First of all, as a result of the 14th amendment, the federal government isn't permitted to default on its debt obligations. A default would require a protracted court battle between congress and the white house, for which congress probably will not have the votes. There are also much bigger macroeconomic problems than the government debt at the moment.

Anyways, my money's on protracting the fight as long as possible in order for both sides to save face. On this here comment thread however I will bid thee farewell.

OMG I must be some kind of unicorn. I am female, hispanic, and a software developer in Silicon Valley. The few other women I work with are either Asian, Indian, or Russian.

I had a good laugh when one of my female Indian coworkers was "promoted". Her reward? A 3% raise! (I got a 2.5 % raise, and was NOT promoted.) But since she's "promoted", she has double the responsibility. Yay, promotions, yay, a seat at the table for 12 hours a day. She's a terrific engineer, don't get me wrong, but after I pointed out what really happened, she realized that all the extra hours she was working were basically going to be at less than minimum wage.

With the technology today, a person can come up with great idea and have strong determination is always the winner. She's passionate and does have strong believe in her career. It doesn't matter anymore for different gender here. A person fail, and can start it all over again until he/she achieve, that's the successful person.

This went in wayy different directions than I was expecting it to; good on you, author (don't know your name, don't really care), for trying to "educate" your readers by being angry at them, and I honestly commend your efforts to break down an article in time for the manipulative tripe it really is (I live under a rock and don't read magazines, so I don't know how honest or fake the article in question is, this was only partial sarcasm).

I just wish you'd cited more passages from the article you were talking about; and I wish you had provided a more comprehensive breakdown/criticism of your own arguments alongside your arguments in an effort to be (or at least seem) as objective as possible (and yes it is possible to be/seem objective if, while being opinionated, you constantly point out your own flaws and the fact that your views are as personal and human as those of your readers, the only difference being that you're not so lazy as to not do your homework while sharing said opinions).

Go with option one. Experience in real engineering will be more attractive to consulting firms than consulting firm experience will be to real engineering firms. Aggressively pursue training, different assignments, etc. It makes you look good without working extra hours and may actually be fun. If you get sick of where you are you'll have a lot of good stuff for your resume, including for switching to consulting.

Or, here's simple test: Business travel sucks and no company will pay you enough to do it all the time. If you disagree, be a consultant.

While I agree with the liberation of women for how men have treated them so poorly over hundreds of years, I feel that it is begining to swing too far the other way. Women are getting away from their natural roles and taking on the roles of men. We are moving away from our own masculine and feminine instincts and energies and the lines are becoming blurred.

Aside from the posts themselves blowing your hair back, I am grateful for the comments and discussions on here. I don't know of any other sites (would do well to be on the lookout) with content that attracts such fruitful/applicable insights that I've personally benefited from taking to heart - namely seeing improvements in the lives of some friends and loved ones result from the ongoing challenge to not behave like "lead/main character" anymore. The turn-around in some relationships has been uncanny and, in turn, has made MY life a lot better after getting past that initial 'faking it' phase. Go figure.

She won't go with option 1. Have you ever seen a woman become a real engineer? An engineering degree is only a resume line for ambitious women. Consulting is cool. The client usually provides the answer they want validated by the consulting firm. Women get to make the presentation. Just like models get to wear clothes that they didn't design.

I especially liked the words: "They teach them how to want... Then who can unbrainwash them? No one." It's a prevalent theme in our society: Allie has it and I saw it on TV so I want it too. Not that I need it. I just WANT it. We ARE brainwashed and it's difficult to blame our mothers. I think the blame comes from mass media and our peers.

There is something to this comment - although I am purposely ignoring nature/nurture here.

There is something to whole "women not becoming real engineers." I don't know how you would define a "real" engineer, but I suspect it involves having part of your identity include being an engineer - as an end, not a means to an end.

You suggest that they want to be a part of the process, but not as a cog in the machine, but as the face of the machine - and the one that gets the praise for the success of the machine. They don't want, in general, to be a just another body in the workplace. Face it, being the fullback on an NFL team is never as flashy or attention-getting as the wide receiver or quarterback.

This where I have noticed differences in the behavior of men and women. Early on in careers, innate talent and industrious traits cultivated through childhood are good predictors of success.

However, this matters less and less as you progress - the hard work put in to advance skills/knowledge matter more, and - also critical - the ability to understand and manipulate power. This is were women fall behind.

As TLP has explained above, the women who read Cosmo and Time are not advancing to the halls or power - but buying into an illusion of personal power.

Breaking this down in the two prongs I've outlined above, women often buy into the illusion of knowledge. Past girlfriends of mine all have bookcases - all showing off nonfiction books that at some point or another were popular. Never read or just briefly skimmed. I used to be disappointed their copy of "Brave New World" was unread, now I don't even blink an eye.

However, their fiction books are often well-worn. Fiction is a great way to let your mind wander and to develop your creativity when you read great writers. Yet, it is just that - a distraction. On the job - or enhancing your reputation as whip-smart - quoting Twilight won't help with that, but being able to quote from Pinker's "The Blank Slate," or a book on American history will.

Most professions don't benefit from consuming large amounts of fiction. Most professions benefit from the accumulation of large bodies of knowledge, the ability to make connections between different ideas and the ability to convey your thoughts coherently verbally or via the written word. While the ability to think critically is very important, it is worthless in a specialized profession without the commensurate depth of knowledge and communication ability.

As for the other prong of learning to manipulate power, this is a far, far more difficult task that will involve serious failures on the your way to manipulate power.

It is an old truism that every successful American politician has a bald-faced defeat in his political past. Bill Clinton - stomped in his first reelection bid for governor, George W. Bush got squashed in his first ever bid for public office.

Which brings this back to the female readership of Cosmo and Time. It is inherently therapeutic - but the sort of therapy that TLP has identified as "But how to do I change?" The sort of question that begs no serious answer, but a lifetime of superficial solutions and even more superficial personal gains.

Which - and this point is sex-neutral - is that if you want to be successful career-wise or "rise to your level of incompetence," you have to change. Some people are more charismatic than others, understand the nuances of power (the latter group more likely narcissistic than the average person), or whatever. Yet, you have to change.

What I see in women is a stalling. Once their graduation gown from college comes off, they gain some professional skills, but they are the same person. They haven't learned some rudimentary skills of charisma - steady eye contact, talk in terms of somebody else's interests, etc. They display them often, but not consistently at level that would highlight their value to upper management in the sense that this person knows how to appeal to people.

Further, they don't understand the nuances of manipulation. Pure application of the book "How To Win Friends And Influence People" will help anybody significantly - especially if they want to unhinge themselves from narcissistic self-indulgence as you have to learn to become genuinely interested in others - or learn to fake it, I suppose.

The best mainstream analysis of power in America is embodied in "The Gervais Principle" (google it). It is a series of posts analyzing power relations in modern corporate America, using the US version of "The Office" as vehicle to display how and why certain people climb the ladder - and why they stall.

I think my last comment was modded for being too long, so I will end there.

That's what they want you to think so you keep supporting suboptimal inflation levels.

The problem is that the high power money supply, i.e. all the money that's not circling the FIRE sector of the economy in the hands of a select few, has been growing slower than the economy. Relative to absolute value of prices it looks like inflation, but relative to output potential our shrunken money supply is behaving as deflation.

There's a reason that FIRE is so profitable for no fundamentals reason other than one: that the growth of the high powered money supply is much slower than the growth of the industrial economy.

Of course wages are growing the slowest, hence why it looks like inflation is the problem. But that's the lie.

For example, the advice that the most important choice you will make is the person you choose to marry is in fact eminently sensible. I'm not sure why you confuse it with falling in love. Falling in love with someone is not a choice, but the decision to marry most certainly is. 2 choices, if I remember correctly, only one of which any individual person has control over. Considering this, the reason that marriages made somewhat later in life more likely to not end in divorce is an exercise left for the reader.

On the subject of your style, a surfeit of typos actually does indicate laziness. It is evidence of the contempt you feel your readers, and I suspect yourself, as it shows that you cannot be bothered to read your own writing carefully. In terms of style, this is the least of your problems. Soaking your prose in neologisms and witty asides makes it less easy to take it seriously, despite your apparent belief that silly remarks are desirable.

You should do some basic remedial writing work. Struck and White is a good place to start. A clear style cannot hide weak arguments. On the contrary, they will show up quite plainly. By developing a better prose style you will find your arguments becoming clearer, if you care to make real arguments at all, which I suspect you don't. I imagine "display" is more important than argument to you.

I partly agree and partly disagree on the matter of the books read. I think the trouble is not that a woman is not reading Brave New World that matters, what matters is that she essentially wants to signal that she read brave new world (or whatever other book that was "in" at some point). One of the first questions I would ask is how many books on that book shelf have never been in the NYT bestseller list, either fiction or nonfiction. In other words, what is it that she actually reads that is not being displayed. I have a lot of books I've read that I'm not sure I'd necessarily want to show off, I like the Dune series, I like Game of Thrones, I like all kinds of stuff. I've read BNW, it's not as good as 1984, but it's decent.

The other thing is that a good author can make you think harder about a subject matter by writing a fiction book than by writing a nonfiction book. Science Fiction, at least GOOD science fiction, is good for that. 1984 does a better job of discribing a politically corrected society than any nonfiction book ever can, and it's more or less because it's fiction. It bypasses the defense systems. Dune can make you think fairly deeply about religion (or at least it did for me) because it wasn't about any actual religion. This wasn't an account of Jesus or Muhammad or Buddha, but it could make you think about what the early followers of those religions would have been thinking about -- because it was about people following a warrior-messiah. Had Herbert chosen to make his point about the dangers of a messiah in nonfiction, it never would have reached the eyeballs of anyone who wasn't already at minimum agnostic -- no Christian would buy a book that critisizes Christ, no Buddhist reads a book that calls out Buddha, and so on. Make it about some distant future warrior messiah, make the whole thing about Fremen instead of Muslims, and people who never thought about it before read it.

Seriously? MY ignorance of recent history? Perhaps you should review some historic crime statistics. Or the horrifying rate of Ritalin prescriptions among elementary-school kids. Or the number of kids under 15 who abuse drugs. Or the teen pregnancy rate. My eyes are wide open; it is you who are deluded by your prejudices.

Is it more important for women to work in a JOB, or to raise kids who become whole, healthy, self-reliant, intact individuals? If the former, then go ahead; you have sold your soul to the Borg, you have been assimilated to the Machine, your children are sacrificed to Moloch. I, on the other hand, have taken a great deal more than 'a few minutes' to think it through. All of the other factors you note may play some part in the current economic malaise: "globalization... financialization [sic.; what is that?] ... or the 30 years of cuts to the social safety net, union busting, stagnant middle class pay, and the cuts to state level funding for universities? I can go on [I'll bet you can!]."

But this is all beside the point (in addition to being provably false insofar as the safety net and university funding have both exploded over the last thirty years). Is Society--Civilization--the Family--better off with women working, or with women in the home? All evidence points to the latter. Unless you like Stuff more than you like your kids, in which case by all means, leave your rose-colored glasses perched on your smug little face, buy your kids an iTunes gift card, and refill their Ritalin prescription. They'll be fine. Maybe. Either way, it's not your concern, is it?

P.S. What does this have to do with anything?: "Oh and 50 years ago our president was assassinated by a man angry at "the system". You really have no idea what you're talking about."

Just some random fact that you thought of? Are you arguing that Lee Harvey Oswald was actually an anti-feminist who shot Kennedy in an attempt to raise tariffs so women wouldn't need to work? Typically the facts raised in a debate bear some logical connection to the point being made. I mean, Squeaky Fromme couldn't even get a cartridge in the pistol she was using to take a shot at Gerald Ford. You want a job done right.....

The term "politically correct," with its suggestion of Stalinist orthodoxy, is spoken more with irony and disapproval than with reverence. But across the country the term p.c., as it is commonly abbreviated, is being heard more and more in debates over what should be taught at the universities.

Some advice about Austin. It's the most expensive city in the state - 50% more than any other. While bartending seems exciting, that's all your life will be - hoping to work enough hours to make rent and food.

however, many in Austin are single and live the single life. Eat out for every meal, visit bars, and tip well. Money to burn and few real responsibilities.

Hi TLP! Insightful post as always. You should check out this trending article by a professor at the University of Rochester. I think you'd be interested. As the title of the article summarily suggests, the professor wonders why rapists shouldn't be allowed to ‘reap the benefits’ of passed out girls.

"Why weren't there school shootings and widespread drug use and single motherhood fifty years ago? Because Mom was home doing the Most Important Thing--raising the kids, and enforcing a code of discipline on all those latchkey truants."

First and foremost, the first major increase in incidence of rage murder sprees in the 20th century began in the workplaces of the 1980s. There have been more workplace murder sprees than school shootings since then. Most of these shooters in the 1980s were teenagers and adults even before women's liberation was visible in popular culture, so what accounts for their violence?

What did the parenting of the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s do to create a Charles Whitman, Patrick Sherrill or a Lee Harvey Oswald? Women were women and Men were men then, weren't they Mr. Bunker?

"Seriously? MY ignorance of recent history? Perhaps you should review some historic crime statistics. Or the horrifying rate of Ritalin prescriptions among elementary-school kids. Or the number of kids under 15 who abuse drugs. Or the teen pregnancy rate. My eyes are wide open; it is you who are deluded by your prejudices. "

Accusations of prejudice are ironic coming from someone who thinks women entering the workforce undermined the competitive edge America enjoyed over the rest of the world after WW2. No need to look at something as trivial as global economic development, deregulation of financial markets, or the massive growth in jobs that pay a relative pittance. Or the generally stagnant wages and indebtedness of the working "middle" class in the US.

You could argue from the fact that two-income households largely offset this sharp decline in the value of American labor (ofc, until cheap credit and home equity took over). Actually this is where your argument is strongest, but inexperienced women somehow single-handedly bargaining down the value of working/middle class labor in some kind of economic vacuum is a patent absurdity. Locating it as the root of the problem is a delusion better left to a Fox News segment.

If anything, the -- yes, then male dominated -- system invited them to the workplace because of the potential labor cost savings. This co-opted pseudo-feminism served the interests of the ruling class - something I do agree with.

If I'm understanding your argument correctly however, you seem to think it was those uppity quasi-lesbians took it upon themselves to erode (somehow self-evidently superior, facts optional) "competitive" culture of the American workplaces - of some unspecified time and place predating the existence of said lesbians but after WW2 - that drove their children to the illegal cocaine drugs and unprotected sex, generally decaying the moral fiber of American society.

While teen pregnancy, Ritalin, and drug addiction are definite social problems, your rhetorical sleight of hand doesn't stretch as far as you'd like it to when you make a claim like this:

" Is Society--Civilization--the Family--better off with women working, or with women in the home? All evidence points to the latter."

No, it doesn't. Globally, Infant mortality is as low as it's ever been in human history. So is world hunger. Economic productivity has never been higher in the US -- even if working conditions and pay did not rise consummate with it. Violent crime is as low as it was in the 1960s, and the US now has double the population. In many objectively quantifiable ways, "Society" is a more humane and safer place to live than 1960.

"Unless you like Stuff more than you like your kids, in which case by all means, leave your rose-colored glasses perched on your smug little face, buy your kids an iTunes gift card, and refill their Ritalin prescription. They'll be fine. Maybe. Either way, it's not your concern, is it?"

How is 1990 not early? That was right when conservatives started to make a big deal about the term. Conservatives now like to pretend that the term was used non-ironically by academics, but it wasn't.

Do academic's attempt to control the bounds of acceptable speech/opinion? Of course, they do. And they are pretty successful at it:

--------

LEDA COSMIDES: Right, I think that's the claim. But the real question I had was about the cosmopolitanism, because I'm puzzled by that in a certain sense. It almost sounds, like "come be an undergraduate and everything is going to be okay." I'm wondering if that is a real factor that's contributing to this. It must be driven a lot by popular culture because you don't have massive numbers of people reading Proust and etc.

STEVEN PINKER: It's a rising tide that lifts all the boats. It sounds elitist to say this, but attitudes toward women, homosexuals, and racial minorities, and the tolerant attitudes that we celebrate of not beating up your kids, tend to start among the most educated strata, and you can see the rest of the country being dragged behind. With a lot of these statistics, the red states today have attitudes that the blue states had 30 years ago—toward women, towards spanking, towards homosexuals, towards animal rights, and so on.

What starts out at the universities and the pundits can trickle down and become conventional wisdom. That probably happens worldwide as well. This is another thing I'll probably get flak for saying, but very roughly you can see a continuum in the world in a lot of variables related to the decline of violence: Western Europe, then the American blue states, then the American red states, then Latin America and Asian democracies, and the Islamic world and Africa pulling up the rear. We can look, say, at the criminalization of homosexuality in Africa, or human trafficking, and say the world is in a terrible state, which of course it is. But the historical trend is that the other parts of the world eventually catch up. Slavery is a concrete example: just fifty years ago, slavery was still legal in Saudi Arabia.

While TLP is dead-on with most of this, he loses it when he says that pragmatism has no place in lifelong matchmaking. The truth is that there are different kinds of love, and love is tricky. Deciding that someone will be your mate for life based on pragmatic qualities, and then coming to love each other as the years go on, isn't the most romantic strategy, but it works. And in the long run, it's more romantic than a passionate and short marriage between people who were ultimately not good for one another.

Stephen Pinker is a self-aggrandizing Leftist gatekeeper. His whole schtick revolves around Political Correctness doctrine and trying to "prove" there are "hard-wired" bases for the things he would, in comfortable living room 1AM chatter, identify as "reactionary" -- as if labelling things or people as "reactionary" somehow answers a driving question and settles all scores on who is the moral superior.

A bit late for a reply, and if I sound like an old fart, well I am (but I've worked in food service and consulting, so I know a bit of what I speak of):

Bartending in Austin sounds like fun (and it will be fun) -- but I'd think long and hard about that route. If you're really interested in a successful career, your first job is incredibly important. If you don't utilize your skills they will erode -- and quickly. Also, don't discount that in a few years you'll be "last year's model".

Consulting can be a grind -- but I think that in the long run a few years will help you (particularly if it's a well known firm -- future employers will give it a big plus). I did a few years at two of the "big 4" (I'm not an engineer -- a finance/risk mgmt type) and even 15 years later it helps to have it on the resume.

On the Ohio job -- it SOUNDS the most promising but I'd be wary of anything in a second or third tier labor market. And what you're told you're going to do and what you actually do are two entirely different things.

My recommendation -- consulting. You may love it, you may hate it but consider it a long term investment. And if the travel really does get to you, quit and do something else. Hell, you could consult for 3 years and THEN go bartend for a year.

i mean NOW we workin FOR NO MONEY-at home. if women wouldn't do all the household, there would be a problem, right?
so maybe we could say-let the man who want stay home ( i know enough) stay home and the women who want to work work.
because it pisses me off that all this "they only want you as work slaves" is ONLY pulled out of sb ass if its to argue AGAINST women working.

maybe you copuld pull it ozut and tell all the men sto step aside and make all the household shit, get neither money nor approval for it and then shut the fuck up.

or let everybody work and women who love household get money for it? because i wont work 24 hours for no money if this work is relevat for our society. and getting children, holding houses clean, the "batteries" nourished and providing safe spaces for recreational purposes is important.

so..i dont want top hear this bs if its only because people dont want ME to work. tell that all the men, because society-which is mostly controlled by them might believe in this "only if you work are you worth as human being-bullshit" and suffer the consequences (depression, bowel problems, diabetes etc)
so maybe all should do a step back and then look-what do we want.
and then let the people do what they want.
let me work, let my partner stay at home and do the household. pay enough money so that one partner or both can stay at home if they want and enough that they could get somebody who does the household for them for fair money.
that would be win for everyone. noe we have a situation where people get fired although the company has enough money and the people who stayed have to do more work for less money and suffer heath problems.

so this is the problems.that people want their shareholders to get more money and not their employees to have a good job and a good life and ultimately a good society.

Could we just stop these myths?
Why anyone "has to stay home" and do "housework"?
I was rised by single mom and since 19 has lived in a dorm, shared flat or with a boyfriend. And we all worked (or studied, or worked and studied) AND took care of a household. We all did both. And the more people share household, the less work on individual, so more fun for everyone.

This premise stays true even when children come. Last few months Ive spent taking care of my nephew -- since his mother is a selfish pig and his father the same selfish broken psycho. It is not more of a houswork. The most time a child "consumes" is time devoted to actually being with him, playing with him, caressing him and stuff like that + changing diapers. You are preparing food for yourself, so alolng the way you prepare food for a child. You wash yourself, you wash a child. The only difference is that first point - spending time with a child (at least for the first 3 years till kindergarten, and at least till school when you gain also free afternoons back)... so I spend days with a child and then I have nights for my stuff (work, books, study, whatever...). But why should someone suffer epilepsy because of lack of sleep? If you are a single parent, it makes sense. In my case, I pay for someone else´s selfishness. If there are two parents, isn´t that great that they can share duties so everyone can have balanced life and health? And how beneficial is that for a child to see people sharing, contributing... The ultimate purpose of raising a child should be to let him become full, independent human being (preferably with a character) that could continue in leading society into bloom, not despair. What are you teaching him if you have your wife, husband, grandparents, other people to do the job for you and you are the one who... who what? pays bills? tell that to your teenager and he is gonna spit into your face. (no he isn´t. every teenager today knows it is normal, maybe even biological, to not care about anyone, the least about children.)

Of course your boss doesn´t care. Of course the society doesn´t care. Of course you need money. Surprisingly, we still do not create society that would, and bosses that would. How many of you are those bosses? How many of your children are gonna become those bosses?

Every myth is good for someone´s advantage. Why not have a look for who and ask question whether are those people beneficial for society? Or maybe we should ask what kind of society do we want?

Do you really need some aproval or "natural order" or whatever bullshit to figure out what´s best for your children, for people around you, for you, for community, for society?

So Alone finishes this post by saying that the identity/value of women has been dichotomized between “doing housework” and “becoming successful”, and the comments devolve into (incomprehensible) arguing over whether or not women should be doing housework or becoming successful?

I posted the link to the article on my FB page and ask for female comments. They all basically said the same thing which was (paraphrasing) "fuck that bitch, I love my family." These women all work, one is in a high level position in regional publishing. It was encouraging. Then again, these are Appalachian women and, in my opinion, much less likely to let people tell them how to live their lives.

I'm not saying either one -- my thing is that you cannot "have it all", so you need to figure out which things are important to you and behave accordingly. The thing is that men figured that out long ago, when they left for the factories -- if work wasn't the priority for that man, the boss would find someone willing to make work the priority. Women still don't get that -- they think that the boss wants you to have "work/life balance", which is what he says because really he's not going to want to sound like an ass and say something like "work where and when we need you or be sidelined", but that's what happens when he makes the decisions about who to keep, who to promote, and who to replace. Which means that IF women want to be doing the high level jobs they SAY they want, they have to do as the men do -- mostly be there. The go getters are there when there's still a task to finish, they're working on projects even when they're at home, they miss some of their kid's after school stuff, but that's the choice. If they weren't doing that, they'd have the same problem women have -- they'd have symbolic power and a "seat at the table" while getting very few rewards that go along with real power.

It's all about choices, and you need to decide whether you're going to bust ass to be CEO or some other high power position, or whether you're going to seek a "work/life balance" which really seriously balances out to "make 60% of your potential income, but be around for the PTA meeting and helping with the bake-sales and keeping a clean house." It's really that simple, guys chose to make career a priority, so they have more of the money/power that goes with it.

I don't see the point of the arguement. It's up to the individual, it always has been. There's no we here, the woman needs to decide. Give her the tools, give her the facts, get the F out of the way, but at the end of the day, she's the one that has to make the choice of home or office. I don't have the right to dictate to her. If mommy-track is your thing, go for it, choose those jobs, make getting home on time a priority, that kind of thing.

"Vanity, trying to arouse a good opinion of oneself, and even to try to believe in it, seems, to the noble man, such bad taste, so self-disrespectful, so grotesquely unreasonable, that he would like to consider vanity a rarity. He will say, "I may be mistaken about my value, but nevertheless demand that I be valued as I value myself", but this is not vanity. The man of noble character must learn that in all social strata in any way dependent, the ordinary man has only ever valued himself as his master dictates (it is the peculiar right of masters to create values). It may be looked upon as an extraordinary atavism that the ordinary man is always waiting for an opinion about himself and then instinctively submitting to it; not only to a "good" opinion, but also to a bad and unjust one (think of all the self-depreciations which the believing Christian learns from his Church). It is "the slave" in the vain man's blood- and how much of the "slave" is still left in woman- which seeks to seduce to good opinions of itself; it is the slave, too, who immediately afterwards falls prostrate himself before these opinions, as though he had not called them forth. Vanity is an atavism."

Your posts have gotten pretty sparse. Please don't stop writing this blog - I and many others love it. Also, please watch and comment on the movie Detachment. Watching it was like having you right in my living room talking to me, minus the stench of booze. I know it's not funny/radical to like/agree with something, and I know you'd like to sarcastically profess your love for another fantasy like Wanted, but maybe this is an opportunity for you to gain an ally in your crusade.

Men have figured out long ago that they CAN have it all. I cannot recall any note of a "successful" man like "I don´t have kids cause I chose career over family." And if they do have kids just because their wives wanted to... to be honest, I don´t understand those wives.. shit, I forgot -- you get married cause you want to gain something and you have kids cause you also want to gain something... or I don´t know...

Anyway...these choices is a "theory" only for a few... Children usually come not planned -- actually, your decision about children comes not planned. Can you be sure in your 20s you´re not gonna change your mind? Does any boss ask men "are you planning to have kids"? I don´t have a clue. Does any boss ask that? Because if a man WANTS to have kids it´s gonna change his work performance too, right? I don´t know about America, but I live in Europe - and everyone works here. (By everyone I mean majority of men and women.) In less wealthy countries everyone even fights for work. And people still have children. (And not because they don´t have money for pills.) And majority of "successful" men have kids too. Goddamn successful women too.

What puzzles me is what we are actually discussing here? The subject matter of this dispute doesn´t exist. Even that stupid "housework". What the fuck is that? It takes 2hours per week to keep your flat clean. And everyone is capable of taking care of themselves, right? The difference is with kids, but as I said -- it is not housework, it´s time you have to spend with them. And you are not doing that for yourself -- there is nothing you gain from that (except altruistic good feeling about it). The only one who really gains a lot is your kid. And that time shrinks every year.

This discussion about what you should or could or when you do this you cannot do that... what is that about? It seems like there is some question that awaits an answer. But what is that question? And why it needs to be answered?

You have a great job and you got pregnant -- your boss freaks out -- you make your husband to be with a kid. You have a great job and your wife got pregnant -- your boss doesn´t freak out -- your wife also has a great job and her boss freaks out so you got a kid -- your boss freaks out... so, you´re gonna flip the coin? Aren´t there other options? Do you need "men always..." and "women always..." to resolve this situation? You cannot figure this out on your own according to your specific situation?
Then you become a boss and your employee gets pregnant and you freaks out. Why actually is anyone freaking about kids? And if everyone is freaking about kids why we just don´t stop to reproduce? Now this is the point when you get to "you can´t have it all." Someone has to sacrifice something - shouldn´t the expences be shared evenly? (personally, I wouldn´t mind if we decided to let the human kind extinct)

I don´t get what´s her book is supposed to be about -- the book of that woman...I don´t remember the name of that woman the article is about (Sandberg or something like that). Has she figured out some golden rules so that anyone following them is gonna get the same golden result as she has got? I do not mean there are no problems in the world so we can go back to our pack of chips and watch a TV. (Hell I am a single mom who was never pregnant and I don´t even have a child -- there are proud parents who spent hours putting pictures of their kid on facebook but got rabid when he is hungry or wants to play and dares to disturb them.) But these dichotomies is bullshit. It is constructed bullshit. It exists just because we feed it. It helps no one and changes nothing.

Business people don't freak out about men having a family because ... men have generally already made the decision to be the breadwinner and thus if anything are going to be working harder to keep the kid in diapers. Women, on the other hand, are statistically prone to cutting back on work hours and so on in order to be around for the kids. Everyone is making the choice as I said, and no one is exempt from that choice. What the man has working for him is that he has a wife who's probably going to cut her hours in order to raise the kid.

See, this is how it works -- someone is going to be staying with the kids, and someone is going to be working -- the trick is to figure out who is who. If the guy is going to cut his hours to work with the kids, then he's going to lose money and power. If she stays home, she loses money and power.

Really? Men figured out they can have it all? That's bullshit. Men - or least the self-aware ones - always know there are tradeoffs. If you are working 80 hours a week in a high-status job making loads of money that is a tradeoff because you have significantly less time to do other things. The richest man I know doesn't spend much of his money - his wife does because he is working constantly.

I really don't understand the "have it all phenomenon." What is the yardstick that decides what is "having it all?" Are you comparing your life to fictionalized lives in TV shows/movies - or real life people? You can't possibly know if somebody has it all unless you actually get them to be honest about their internal psychological state.

All the money, status and "trophy" spouses won't heal you deep inside if you are fundamentally unhappy. I am pretty sure most people accumulate those sorts of accomplishments *because* they are unhappy. Instead of dealing with thorny psychological issues, they paper over them with superficialities our society approves of.

As for your comments about housework, housework issues are important to some. Feminists have dubbed woman's housework the "second shift." I strongly take issue with that because women are the ones who set the standards for housework. Most men have lower standards for household cleanliness than women. Perhaps - most importantly - women are necessarily setting the standards high for housework not because they have higher standards - they do it because other women will judge them if they have a dirty house.

An amusing anecdote with my girlfriend went something like this: she was criticizing the apartment of a friend, saying it was too dirty, her decorations were tasteless, etc. She turned to me and asked me if I agreed. I said I did - a good wife always makes sure there is no dust on the TV and her refrigerator is always stocked - especially with food to make sandwiches to make her husband. We didn't talk any more about her girlfriend's household decision-making.

As far as what the book is about, I haven't read it and won't waste my time. The reviews suggest she explains her theories of why she is success and the changes she wants to see in the workplace. Nothing wrong with that - except the market is already chock full of the same sorts of books. Odds are - like most of them - the book is just plain drivel.

The best way to figure out if you are being exploited is to watch the amount of "perks" you are given at work. The best way to stop an office of 12 people from asking for a $5,000 raise each is to buy the entire office a $2,000 TV to share.

The interesting thing is that we're still moving on from the 'nuclear family' concept, and it still shows in the media (lol!). Poor, dear media, so confused about gender roles and what is 'safe' for them put forth. Be simpler if they just ignored the silly constructs.

Really, there is far too much 'this is for women', oh, isn't it cute that women are succeeding in a male-dominated world (but what is your arguments for it being male-dominated in the first place? Unless you're saying that all employers still hire men over women first before considering their actual skill, or something), 'this is for men', 'men should do this' 'women should do this', bla bla bla going around.

Oh, the media is being silly again. Eh, it's promising that you pointed it out!

Of course the women look pretty and polished, you can't have unpolished and not pretty people in media photos! That would be outrageous! No one likes to look at that. And we have to get rid of all those conferency things, they're messing up the photo.

"The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in which it is held by American college graduates. Its advice ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense. Its enormous influence has not improved American students' grasp of English grammar; it has significantly degraded it."

"I've spent too much of my scholarly life studying English grammar in a serious way. English syntax is a deep and interesting subject. It is much too important to be reduced to a bunch of trivial don't-do-this prescriptions by a pair of idiosyncratic bumblers who can't even tell when they've broken their own misbegotten rules."
*****
“Martin took the same course, thinking as he went, that perhaps the free and independent citizens, who in their moral elevation, owned the colonel for their master, might render better homage to the goddess, Liberty, in nightly dreams upon the oven of a Russian Serf.” Dickens

We are conditioned, from early on, to seek what we subconsciously find attractive. So if our role models are in bad relationships or we see specific types of relationships validated around us as children, then we grow up to hold perceptions that are reflective of that and, yes, emotions are related, but to say that our later choices are random and not associated with our childhoods is fiction.
We pick the wrong partners because we've had bad examples before us or our parents had crap relationships or we come from (either gender) single parent households and had potential mothers or fathers paraded before us.
Partner/Spouse choice definitely matters. A person's wellbeing (which influences their job choices, overall career path, confidence, etc) as a partnered individual is hinged on their choice of partner and if that choice of partner is bad, then it's better to be single.

How much of that is "real" and how much is manufactured? We have pretty much been trained to look at love as though it's a romantic movie. He's hot, he makes me feel so special, things like that. It's not a deep attraction, it's the stupid lines from any Rom Com from the last 20 years. And amazingly enough its not a good way to meet a mate. Real relationships take time, and while warm fuzzies might keep you around long enough to get to know someone, we treat a warm fuzzy as proof that this is THE ONE (TM) and our soul mate (seriously what is that). But if all you have is a warm fuzzy feeling, you probably don't even know your guy, he's a fantasy in your head.

The real love, I think is not in how he makes you feel, but what you're willing to do for him -- or of course reverse the pronouns for guys -- because that tells me a lot more about what you know about him. If you're willing to visit him in a nursing home when he gets alzheimers and doesn't remember your name, that's real love. When you're willing to cross the country and leave everything behind for them, you probably love them. If you're willing to cook his favorite food and eat it even though you hate it, thats love. And of course getting to know his interests and his story and his likes, dislikes, or peeves. In other words, when it stops being a "warm fuzzy feeling" you'd bet be not-narcissistic enough to see him as a real human with real wants, needs and feelings that are not merely projections of what you'd want if you were him or what you think he should want.

That's the thing though, predictably enough, the Matrix has taught us to fail at love because they need you to be a battery.

That's so true. We can't ride two horses at the same time. Having a brass ring is about making a home, and making a generation, while making a business is an entirely opposite thing. So at the end of the day we either have to choose or lose.

It seemed like women really are taking more roles compared to how they were treated and perceived a few decades back. I am not surprised actually as to how women gain their better reputation these days, more because of the simple fact that, virtually, everyone allowed such to happen all for a good cause, i.e, a better world. Anyway, as for my opinion, I still regard a healthy relationship as the highest factor in any growing organization or community.

"...I work with a lot of women, and to a girl, none of them want to be in management, no matter how much more money they make. It's too much, too stressful, too variable of hours, whatever. But then with the next breath they want the money that goes with it..."

This bit, this assertion did my head in for a minute or two. I know it'd be a boring old world if we were all the same, but either that was a temporally displaced comment wormholed in from the 1980s, or billygoats must be herded away from this particular bridge...

...and I nearly fell into your trap, dammit, getting all gung ho and ready to count the ways you are offensively wrong. But maybe you are right. It could be that your workplace is so revolting that a job in management is a poisoned chalice or a quick hiding to a nervous breakdown. It could be the pay is so rubbish that everyone prays for a pay-rise every day - and offering someone a promotion lets them know their employer thinks they are worth more pay too...

"To a girl", I've only know women to turn down management jobs when the conditions were family-unfriendly or downright awful. Men too, come to think of it, "to a boy".

I like your style. The post was interesting and thought-provoking, which almost never happens anymore.

Recently I've been thinking a lot about guaranteed income, unions, and how Whole Foods can give cashiers stock options without affecting their bottom line.

Just as there is enough food in the world to feed eveyone, there is enough wealth in the economy to provide everyone with food, shelter and basic medical care. But society is still thinking about 'job creation'.

Are we so culturally addicted to employment we can't think of any alternative? Sure unions can be short-sighted and selfish but do we think employers are not? You think the government will ever truly act in the interest of the masses? It currently cannot even act in it's own long-term self interest.

Interesting article. I agree with Bill can we not think of another alternative to employment? More and more women are turning their backs on businesses and jobs that are male bias in favor of carving their own paths their own way.

It's a store, and yes there are nights and weekends, there are overnight shifts occasionally. But the thing is that MEN are willing to do those things to get the promotion and the raise, women are willing to wish for the raise and don't even put themselves in contention for the same promotion and raise.

I'm not saying those hours are great for families, BUT, if you want to make decent money or put yourself on the track to running either an entire section of that store, or even the store itself, you have to be willing to do those things. And store managers do pretty well for themselves -- ours can afford a brand new truck every year on bonuses alone. You don't get there, however without a lot of overnight shifts, a lot of putting up with stress, and a lot of weekends that you'll be stocking shelves instead of hanging out. Guys are willing to do that much more so than girls. Which is why guys make the vast majority of upper management. First rule of management is to be there when they need you and be good enough to be noticed. Secondly, if you want more money, beyond a certain point, you do have to take on more responsibility. No one is going to pay you more for doing the same thing, in fact, sooner or later, they'll realize that they could fire you and replace you with a cheaper new person who they can train pretty easily to do your job. So depending on getting a raise that beats inflation is kinda like expecting your boss to be your mom and just give you stuff 'cause you need it. It doesn't work that way, never has never will.

I found Lucy Kellaway’s column very interesting and worthy of further consideration. (Don’t hate the successful because they are beautiful, April, 29.)

John Kenneth Galbraith commented many years ago that society’s bias towards greater height was one our “most blatant and forgiven prejudices.” Over the last 35 years, I have worked to change this thinking because it is dangerous to human survival. A world of shorter, smaller people is important because it reduces food, energy, and resource needs by substantial amounts. A CDC scientist calculated a mere 10 pound increase in the average weight of Americans requires 350 million more gallons of airline fuel per year. My own calculations indicate that a 10% increase in height with the same body proportions costs the US about $1 trillion per year.

Epidemiologist Heude reported that our obesity epidemic is related to accelerated growth. Researcher Bellizzi also reported that as populations get taller, their weight for height increases. For example, in 1900, US males averaged about 5’7” and had a body mass index (BMI) of 21. Today American males average over 5’10” and have a BMI of almost 27. (BMI = weight (kg)/height (m) cubed.)

Many praise the greater longevity and height of today’s developed populations. Unfortunately, this is a misleading claim. Our greater life expectancy is driven by a large reduction in infant, maternal and elderly mortality due to improved sanitation, medications and medical procedures. However, many of our elderly suffer from a host of health problems due to our excess weight, poor nutrition and lack of exercise. For example, a recent Gallup poll of US workers found that 86% had some form of chronic ailment or were obese. In view of the fact that many in the work force are under 40 years of age, this is a horrible testament to our poor health. Former Smithsonian Institute consultant, Peter Farb, reported that taller height was an adaptation to eating large amounts of food rather than to better quality food. Dr. Richard Gubner, as well as many others, also noted that increasing size is a false biological idol and reduces health and longevity.

While larger species generally live longer than smaller species, within many species it is just the opposite. For example, the smaller individual within dogs, horses, mice, rats, cows and elephants lives longer. Certainly tall people can live to be 100 years of age. However, most peer-reviewed papers on 100-year-olds report males average 5’2”. In addition, a recent Sardinian study found that shorter men lived longer than taller ones (Salaris, Poulain and Samaras, Biodemography and Social Biology, 2012).

I have reported on the various ramifications of increasing body size in over 40 books and medical journals. Virtually all my longevity studies have found shorter people live longer. However, height is only about 10% of the longevity picture and thus taller, higher socioeconomic people have many health advantages over shorter, obese people in the lower economic classes.

For those interested in the various economic, environmental, physical, intellectual and health aspects related to our increased size go to: http://www.humanbodysize.com

Borderline sleeve? Pretty sweeping generalization there. My daughter sometimes wears sleeves like that and there is definitely nothing borderline about her. It's just a fashion. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Captivating article! It's rare I find a blog that entices me to the point that I can't stop reading but this article has done just that. I think women are our own worst enemies...and each other's! There are a lot of judgmental comments thrown at Sandburg and it's partially understandable. However, being a powerful women in today's society is difficult so I commend her for trying.

"What the Time article made a big deal about was that she fought for pregnancy parking spots, that's the progress, you go girl, Sandberg is also fighting for the right to cry at work, Jezebel was right, feminism is moving."

I realized what was happening in my office. Lots of my former coworkers went to Facebook. Suddenly with a splash of paint, we're just like Facebook! We have ONE preggers parking spot up in the front of my building! The other late preggers who want to park can have one of the other two pregger spots in the parking garage about 200 yards away.

But it looks good when extolling the virtues of my mostly male workplace. Naturally, as a non-pregnant female, I drive by the empty spot and curse under my breath. OTOH, there's nothing stopping me from parking there and them claiming to be on the verge of a miscarriage and making everybody stop asking me if I'm really pregnant. Then, if they ask again, I can say I don't want to talk about it. But I'm just a little envious, I'm not a sociopath (I don't think so, anyway), so I leave the preggers spot alone.

"What the Time article made a big deal about was that she fought for pregnancy parking spots, that's the progress, you go girl, Sandberg is also fighting for the right to cry at work, Jezebel was right, feminism is moving."

I realized what was happening in my office. Lots of my former coworkers went to Facebook. Suddenly with a splash of paint, we're just like Facebook! We have ONE preggers parking spot up in the front of my building! The other late preggers who want to park can have one of the other two pregger spots in the parking garage about 200 yards away.

But it looks good when extolling the virtues of my mostly male workplace. Naturally, as a non-pregnant female, I drive by the empty spot and curse under my breath. OTOH, there's nothing stopping me from parking there and them claiming to be on the verge of a miscarriage and making everybody stop asking me if I'm really pregnant. Then, if they ask again, I can say I don't want to talk about it. But I'm just a little envious, I'm not a sociopath (I don't think so, anyway), so I leave the preggers spot alone. But I would never even approach a woman who parked there to demand that she pee on a stick to prove her eligibility.

"No, she just means when you get married, to pick someone who supports your goals." In other words, a business relationship? Arranged marriage, only this time by Match.com's algorithm? "No, a marriage based not on passion but on mutual respect and shared values--" Stop, listen to what you are saying. Why would you want a man who agreed to this? Why would a man want a woman who thought like this?"

Many/most of the asian(Indian) women I work with did precisely this - arranged marriages. This is part of that culture. Some of the east asians did the same thing. Their partners were selected based on common social standing, common educational and societal backgrounds, family approval, and of course, astrological sign. (I am not making that up.)

Let's not forget that an Indian woman with "too much" education will find it difficult to catch a man. Men there don't want to marry a woman "better", as her family and his friends will look down on him. So they look for equal or slightly lower. Tough luck for the "top" girl in her class.

That whooshing sound was the point of the article flying over your head.

"To really succeed as a woman in business you have to act like a man."

It's a measure of your own narcissism that you understand that women have to change themselves to fit into a competitive business environment, but can't understand that men have been doing the same thing all along.

So, as a new reader (forgive if this is already addressed elsewhere), and assuming this outlook on society is "true," what's the solution? We're all (men and women) damned if we do and damned if we don't, because this is the society/system in which we exist. There's really no escaping that... Is there?

Love is giving something you haven't got to someone who doesn't exist.

How many of us really are lucky enough to work in job we love? Not enough of us. First of all, all those great modelling jobs and freelance art assistant jobs are filled. Whatever's left is pretty much all you can get. The 9-5 hours are too long, 5 days a week are too many and the weekends are too short. I feel the true feminists are the women who carved out their artistic pursuits IN SPITE of/INSTEAD of/ children/husbands/lovers. Women too often get sidetracked from their true purpose on earth, by chasing dreams (his/the kids) and relationships that are going nowhere. It's easier to focus on his career than get off your ass and do your thing. It's always black and white: family or career. I hate that argument. It's so polarising and limiting.

If you do get off your ass and do your creative shit, then I guess choosing the right partner will ensure that he/she will be jumping for joy and doing anything to help you get there. Not sulking because what precious time you have together is being sucked up by your soul desire for creativity. Women get heaps accomplished when living alone, that is for sure.

Unfortunately for men, they all seem to be herded into the business world where they act like drones and woe betide if they have any creative urges to fullfil. These desires are stuffed down with responsibilities and peer pressure to 'buck up' and work longer hours. I wouldn't be a man for quids.

i recently contacted a doctor named GBOCO i find his email: gbocotemple@yahoo.com on the internet so i decided to contact him for help in my relationship he ask me to send him my details which i did after that he told me that the gods reveled something to him and he told me everything that was reveled to him and he told me what he was going to do that after three days my relationship became sweet again and the person that was behind my problem came to begin me for forgiveness which my mother in-law now i and my love are happy again including my mother in-law.... thanks to Dr. GBOCO.

I can't help but wonder what is motivating this slew of patronizing, misogynistic rants. Another Dr.Phil, who knows women better than they know themselves, but from a different angle? If it wasn't such patent bullshit, I might have something more to say here, but shallow, patronizing, misogynistic and self-serving about sums it up.

No, because the writer here is a typical psycho who thinks (he) sees through veil and has a special message to share with the rest of us brainwashed drones. This is the voice of someone speaking from the basement apartment in their mother's house. You live in the world and have achieved some degree of functionality? That's because your a corporate drone or a brainwashed idiot woman "playing" at being a grown-up while secretly obsessed and solely concerned with her hair and make-up, and what other people think. Men, you're not off the hook either, because you too have failed to achieved the fantasy of an "authentic" life -whatever that is - unbounded by the boring social dictates of real life. All you social failures take comfort in knowing you've escaped "the system"! Congratulations! The ship leaving for planet Earth is leaving any day now...

Of course he's "writing" a "book" on pornography - and not just watching it! That would be far too pedestrian a pastime for our learned author! He's not a misogynist weirdo living on the margins - he's a philosopher and a doctor, with insight not ONLY into the human soul but the very mechanisms of society which other mere mortals lack the intellectual capacity to fathom! Oh Great One, your depths are so deep and so profound! Even while watching porn...Does anyone else here see what utter bullshit this is?

How could I select my love based on my career concerns, or is the logic that my soulless zombie skull would love anyone who agreed to do half the chores? The only person who can pull that off is a psychopath, and sure, you may indeed succeed in life, but at what cost? What are you good for? But the Time Magazine force vector doesn't care about your human happiness, it most certainly doesn't care about your caring about your partner's happiness, it cares about your role as producer, and by producer I mean consumer. Eat up, it will have corn in it.

Etc.
Who is writing this shit? Seriously. "Sure you want to be happy, but at what cost?" As if choosing a partner that is willing to share the load is somehow antagonistic to loving them or being loved or detrimental to your happiness, or psychopathic. Seriously. But the real symptom here are the comments that follow from people so vulnerable to this kind of romanticized, pseuduo-psycho-social "analysis" that has "home spun auto-didact" stamped all over it. Yes, "home-schooling" for adults can be just as hazardous to their social and intellectual development. What's "the system"? It's reality, the one we co-create and hopefully participate in on a daily basis - something that's hard to do when your spinning and spewing rants from your mother's basement, or at the keyboard of your local library, as I suspect is the case here.

I think both Alone and Dr Phil are right in general about most of what's wrong with Americans. What Dr. Phil tends to emphasize (as does Alone) is that decisions have consequences.

Someone above you posted about women choosing to carve out time for Art and creativity. That's true, and it's true that it's a great thing, but it's not true because they CHOSE ART, it's great because they made a decision about what's important to them. That's the point. You either make choices or the choices you don't make make you. It's how the world works. Someone who isn't choosing to carve out time for something isn't going to get anywhere. That's how it works in the world.

To me, that's the difference between a mature person and an immature person. A mature person is making decisions, and takes the responsibility for the decisions he made. They think about what they want and how to get there, and have a plan to get there - one that they actually follow.

If a mature person and an immature person both want to be writers, the mature person has a plan to write the book, he's making drafts of their story, they're taking them to writing groups to be read. The immature guy is always talking about the book he's going to write, he's got an outline of the book, but when push comes to shove, there's no built in time to write, there's no writer's group for him to take the drafts to, there's not even a draft to take to the writer's group even if he bothered to go to one. Who's going forward on their dream? Who's going to have a book at the end of 2 years? Who's still going to just have an outline of the book that he'd totally write if he had the time? Would Stave Jobs have been able to earn millions of dollars had he never decided to devote himself to computers?

I think you've got a lot invested in the ideology (versus reality) of the notion if "choice". First if all, do you seriously beleive that people "choose" the Consequences of their choices? If so, I think your casaul logic may need some fine tuning...And as for the sacrosanct notion of choice when used to legitimate some wholly fantasmatic ideal of freedom and responsibility - in other words, autonomy - how many choices do you seriously think you are presented with, on any given day? The problem isn't that we have to choose, the problem is a social reality that has such a narrow bandwidth that your choices are irrelevant - unless you consider "do you want fries with that?" a really compelling choice. As for the hypothetical of outline yiur novel as an instance of personal responsibility and effective choice-making, or doing, or however you conceive it...people don't take this step either because the reality is, they don't know HOW to, in which case it isn't an actual option, or that deep down, they really don't have much to outline. Choice is by and large a fantasy,and most "choices" are not terribly significant. If you live in a box, how many choices do yiu have? Oh I know - the choice to pretend you don't live in a box...

Well, if you chose the act that results in the consequences, then in a sense you did choose the consequences. If you decide to drop out of high school, then you did choose to limit yourself to low wage jobs and a life of relative poverty. If you never take the time to write your novel, then you choose to have no novel written a year from now.

Not everything is "up to you", no. How many choices you get is not necessarily up to you, nor does everyone get the same amount of freedom. A kid who's from a rich family gets to make choices that the kid of a poor family simply cannot (for example, the chance to take a year off and intern at a law firm, which looks good on a resume) and someone born in South Korea has more choices than someone born in North Korea or China. Being born black or female changes the range of your choices as well. But even in the worst case, you have some choices. Perhaps the guy in North Korea can't vote, but he can perhaps choose where to live or find a way to not get drafted into the army. Perhaps the poor kid can't afford to go to an elite college, but that doesn't mean that he can't choose to go to a trade school or try for a scholarship. At any rate, you do have some choices to make.

Who would Hercules have been had he loitered at home? no Hercules, but Eurystheus. And in his wanderings through the world how many friends and comrades did he find? but nothing dearer to him than God. Wherefore he was believed to be God's son, as indeed he was. So then in obedience to Him, he went about delivering the earth from injustice and lawlessness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra-h_p-vD2s Right on cue in the midst of "Lean In" mania....this hits the charts and tears it up. If the book is the rhetoric behind this "movement" towards battery status for all this song is the anthem.

Feminism was born when lesbians, who didn't have a husband to provide for them, were frustrated by not being able to find a good paying job. Eventually heterosexual women were duped into believing that they too were disenfranchised in not having the same job opportunities as men.

She fell for the trappings without asking for more money. I once had an hourly job where management tired of paying me overtime so they wanted to make me salaried. I said sure, but I'll need to make this much more...40%. They agreed, imagine if I hadn't asked for it...valued myself.

Now that your coworker got the promotion, once she's proficient, she needs to negotiate a significant raise.

"Unfortunately for men, they all seem to be herded into the business world where they act like drones and woe betide if they have any creative urges to fullfil. These desires are stuffed down with responsibilities and peer pressure to 'buck up' and work longer hours. I wouldn't be a man for quids."

Feminists ignore this. They think men have it easy, that we can do whatever we want, that men have choices. Men succeed because their only other option is failure. When a man fails women and society no longer see him as a man.

No, feminism was born when women got fed up with men constantly telling them what to do and controlling every single aspect of their lives. Believe it or not, us women are human beings, and we do not enjoy being treated like we're anything less than that.

So you went to work, where men tell you what to do? Then read feminist news and feminist blogs so you know what to think about that, and they tell you what to do too. It's the only independence movement I know of where the "freed" people have more masters after their liberation than before.

In the bad old days, you only had your husband bossing you around. Now, you have your husband, your boss, the culture, and your peers.

Saw this linked on iSteve and think it is a great post. Feminism forced women into the workplace to lower wage rates, and is now used to make women think that competing against men is worthwhile while the real wages of both men and women are falling due to immigration and the export of manufacturing.

A great deal of men and women employed to feel Twitter was simply the up coming large fad that was positive to die a more quickly death than MySpace. Effectively, a good deal of people ended up mistaken and most of them are now flocking to the micro-blogging community more quickly than they are flocking to Fb. Indeed, Twitter is the underdog in the social community wars, an underdog that is quite nicely-geared up to perhaps topple Facebook's figures in the up coming numerous a long time. It partly has got one thing to do with the fact that Facebook's person foundation has turn out to be so large that Twitter has absolutelya lot more place for expansion.

Over a year later, I keep coming back to this post. I think it is one of the most fascinating and useful among TLP's collection.

I am at a new job now. Later last year, I traded in the shaky startup life for a senior position at a large, old-fashioned, bureaucratic global company. The money is very good. The benefits are fantastic. And the hours are typically reasonable: 40-45 a week, going up to 60 once a quarter for a period of about two weeks (aka "crunch time" to prep for the next quarter).

The way people behave at this company is instructive and I realized I would do well to copy it. Done is better than perfect. Moreover, how you appear is more important than what you actually ARE. Those who scurry around timidly with pinched faces get more work dumped on them. The 35-year-old Puerto Rican woman in the elegant designer suits who makes sure everyone sees her logged in to the department chat program from 8 AM until 10 PM simply gets more 14-hour days. She has been told she needs to work 4x as hard to be considered half as good, but that's a lie – she need only APPEAR to work 4x as hard, and she'll be considered twice as good.

Unsurprisingly, the men have figured this out first. A male senior project manager who I enjoy shooting the shit with gets in at 9, and spends the first two hours of the day frowning at his laptop, breaking once every 20 minutes to mutter under his breath about the budget or the client or the shitty servers – shockingly slow for a tech company of this stature. He is actually fucking around on the internet, chatting with his buddies who don't work at the company, watching videos, and relaxing. He gets his leisure time in first – but he bills for it, and more importantly, he LOOKS busy, so everyone assumes he is. At 11 he begins his work, and he wraps up by 5 – a nice, easy 6-hour day. Then, he's back on the laptop until 7, frowning and swearing at the screen. What's on that screen? His novel. Facebook. Dirty messages sent to his fiancee over G-Chat. At 7 he leaves, hits the gym, and goes home for dinner at his fancy Upper East Side condo. He earns comfortably in the six figures, and has a buttload of benefits most people would kill for. He is a genius – but not because of his output. Because of what appears to be his output.

The trick here is, you have to be smooth. You have to LOOK like a busy, productive battery. You can't be insecure. The Baby Boomer woman hired a month after me hasn't yet learned this. She peppers every conversation with references to her previous life, in academia, where she taught Baby's First Leftism – as an adjunct, at a college no one's heard of, in Appalachia. She'll only talk to you if it presents an opportunity for her to brag. She tries to be humorous, but since she's made it clear she is a sex-negative radical feminist, she merely comes across as strident. And she gets what she gives. She pretends she is competent and gets work done. In turn we pretend she's a knowledgable, trustworthy professional. Meanwhile, the guy who logs one-third of his hours on Facebook and dirty chat has the real power. Why? Because he's confident. He doesn't hurry, he isn't out to prove anything, but he looks busy and he gets results. He's moving up in the company. She is stalled out at the level she started at 10 years ago.

Needless to say, I'm emulating the man, not her. And not surprisingly, I've already gotten a raise and the same buttload of benefits Mr. Dirty Chat gets. It's not about gender or class here – one of the most powerful people at this company is a 45-year old black woman from the Bronx who plays the game to the hilt and has been rewarded accordingly, many times over. This, not "Lean In," is the REAL Sheryl Sandberg way, when you think about it. The woman knows the game, and she plays it well. Fuck, she wrote a book in which she claimed that she works all night, only breaking for dinner. Want to bet she doesn't? Want to bet that when she was pretending to work 14 hours a day for Facebook, she was actually writing "Lean In"?

Those who transcend their station as useful battery to get real money and real power don't need to read "Lean In," a book which instructs women to work endlessly, and encourages them to buy the lie – that the money and power will follow. The women who lap up that shit like a thirsty beagle laps up water will simply become more overworked, and then, more drained batteries. The people who want, and get real money and real power simply take it.

"Either you marry a shrew who will gain 50lb and take all of your belongings, or you can spend you adulthood sleeping with 20-something beauties and spending your money on cool shit... like video games or an ATV."

I've seen this same binary thinking in virtually every singles' community, regardless of the genders of the people involved. The female version is "either you marry an Alpha investment banker who can provide you the aspirational lifestyle of your dreams", or "be a sugar mommy". This dualism doesn't speak to a desire for love so much as a desire for an aspirational lifestyle in which the mate is the most important accessory.

Who are most of the married people, in the real world? Even most of the people in love? The "average" people! We ALL know plenty of average looking women who are married to men with average working class to upper middle class jobs. We all know people who are even faithful to their spouses! Or heaven forbid, even in love with them!

A reliable informative post that you have shared and appreciate your work for sharing the information. Got some entertaining information and would like to provide it a try. Keep sharing your information. term papers

Well written post I agree with your point. Indeed women are now sucessfull and the trend of women getting online education is also increasing and many women are getting online accredited academic degrees from the best colleges of the world through the option to buy degree online from online accredited academic portals of these top institutes.